SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

John Bercow: Order. I have a short statement to make about the follow-up to last Wednesday’s events. As would be normal after such events, we are seeking to make sure that any lessons are learned through two reviews. The Lord Speaker and I are commissioning an external independent review of how the perimeter of the parliamentary estate, including outbuildings, is secured and protected to produce a preliminary report by the end of April. The two Clerks are commissioning an externally led lessons learned review of the operation last week of Parliament’s incident management framework to report by the end of June. You will all shortly receive a letter inviting you and your staff to contribute your views and experiences to these reviews, and identifying a dedicated email inbox for your comments.
Members will also be aware that 2.40 pm today marks a week on from the shocking events of last  week, and our thoughts will be, in particular, with the Metropolitan police as they mourn their colleague,  PC Keith Palmer.

BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Standing Orders (Private Business)

Ordered,
That the Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business set out in the Schedule be made.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Oral
Answers to
Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Developing Countries (Extreme Poverty)

Nigel Huddleston: What steps her Department is taking to use research, innovation and technology to tackle extreme poverty in developing countries.

Priti Patel: The UK’s investment in cutting-edge research on new technology to tackle extreme poverty is more important than ever before. DFID spends 3% of its budget on supporting research and development, and we are demonstrating leadership on this issue.

John Bercow: I have just been advised of an important matter: I wish to offer a happy birthday to the Secretary of State.

Nigel Huddleston: Evenproducts is a small and innovative company based in my constituency that makes water tanks and sanitation equipment used throughout the developing world. It is also part of DFID’s rapid response group. What is the Department doing to encourage even more small businesses and charities to engage with this work?

Priti Patel: Thank you for your very kind birthday wishes, Mr Speaker.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about small businesses in his constituency and, indeed, in all our constituencies. I congratulate the company he mentioned on the outstanding work that it does in development. I am leading a review of our suppliers in DFID right now. We are changing the way in which we procure. We will ensure that more UK firms, in particular, have the opportunity to support UK aid around the world and deliver on our development objectives.

Gregory Campbell: I pay tribute to the work that the Secretary of State is doing in this area. Does she agree that in much of sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, many charities are doing a lot of work on clean water to try to tackle drought, as well as work on economic development? We can do much more to support these much-needed charities in those countries.

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The challenge that we have across sub-Saharan Africa is drought and the provision of water, and all the essentials that many of us take for granted. He is right that small charities play a crucial role in delivering that. That is why last week I announced the new small charities challenge fund, which will give small charities across the United Kingdom more of an opportunity to access DFID funds and support to go out there and deliver life-saving aid around the world.

Tom Pursglove: As we leave the European Union, does my right hon. Friend agree that we have a unique opportunity to help to eradicate extreme poverty through free trade opportunities?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Today being a very significant day, he is right to raise this issue. We know through all our work that to move countries from aid dependency we have to give them economic empowerment and prosperity. Free trade is one aspect of that, along with the other work that we do on bringing commerce and new trading opportunities, but education as well, to countries around the world.

Kate Osamor: What role will the Ross Fund, co-managed by DFID and the Department of Health, play in the priorities around new investment and co-ordination of projects across Government?

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady is right to raise the £357 million that is associated with the Ross Fund, and I thank her for doing so. We spend that on top of the 3% commitment  of DFID’s money and budget that we already give through the research review that I launched last year. This speaks to our leadership in the world in tackling health epidemics through the work that we led on Ebola and on Zika, and also on TB. Last Friday was World TB Day. Our investment in universities across the United Kingdom in terms of scientific research and development has shown UK leadership in how we can tackle some of these awful diseases and epidemics and get better prevention of them.

Somalia (Food Security)

Neil Parish: What steps her Department is taking to tackle famine and food insecurity in Somalia.

Priti Patel: The UK is at the forefront of international efforts to avert a famine in Somalia. Our additional £110 million of aid will provide food, water and emergency services for more than 1 million people. I think all Members of this House will recognise that we are witnessing Somalia experience an absolutely devastating famine right now, but UK aid is making an enormous difference.

Neil Parish: I thank the Secretary of State very much for her comments. Up to 3 million people are at risk of starvation in Somalia. It is important not only to get the food in, but to make sure it goes to the people who really need it. I would just like to press her a little bit more on how we can physically get the food to those who most need it.

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. First and foremost, I would like to commend all the partners and agencies working in Somalia in quite terrible, difficult and harrowing conditions. We work with a range of trusted and experienced partners in a country that is very difficult; there is no doubt about that. I have met many of them, as have my DFID teams and officials in country. Our priority, as I have said, is to get emergency food and water to the people who need it, and we are working with a range of agencies to do exactly that.

Stephen Twigg: The scale of the humanitarian crisis in Somalia, the rest of east Africa and Yemen is truly appalling. I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about the UK donation, but what are we doing to ensure that other wealthy countries rise to the challenge as well?

Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that remark. He will know that thanks to the generosity of UK taxpayers, the east Africa Disasters Emergency Committee appeal has reached £40 million. UK aid has contributed to that, and rightly so, through our match funding. Others need to do more; I have been unequivocal about the fact that I think that other countries need  to pull their finger out. We have led the way in terms  of lobbying and making calls. All Ministers across DFID and across Government, including Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers, have been doing exactly that—pressing the wealthier countries to contribute more to tackling these famines and to step up their  own responses.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: May I ask the Secretary of State what work her Department is doing with the international community to help ensure that they are better able to provide a more urgent early response to food crises, to avoid mass loss of life?

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that point. What we are seeing is totally unprecedented. To witness the prospect of four famines in 2017 is simply horrific for all of us. There is more that can be done, and the UK is working with others to try to build greater capacity and resilience in those countries so that we do not reach crisis points, as we have done this year, where international appeals have to come together and plead with people to give money. The long-term strategy has to be to build greater resilience. That has worked in countries such as Ethiopia and Kenya in the past.

Kate Osamor: On 21 March, the United Nations agricultural agency further scaled up its activities in drought-ridden regions in Somalia. I thank the agency for the $22 million that was loaned, but I have had concerned constituents asking who will be paying back that loan. Will it be the United Nations or will it be the Somalians?

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady raises an important point about funding and resourcing for such crisis appeals. As I have said, the UK has stepped up and led the way. On my visit to Somalia six weeks ago, we managed to convene more funds—yes, from the UK, but we are getting others to do likewise. We cannot continue to put the debt burden on countries that are struggling, or on a Government who are so new that we have to continue to support them. Of course, we have the Somalia conference coming up very soon.

East Africa (Food Security)

Paul Scully: What steps her Department is taking to tackle famine, hunger and food insecurity in east Africa.

Priti Patel: The humanitarian crises facing the world in 2017 are unprecedented. The UK is leading the response and stepping up life-saving support across east Africa.

Paul Scully: On a recent visit to Kenya and Uganda with the Select Committee on International Development, I met children who had walked up to 10 km just to get to school and 10 km to get back, many of whom were lucky if they had one meal a day. While we were at  the school, we discussed associated educational and developmental issues. What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to supporting food programmes aimed at school-age children?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is right to highlight  that, and I am glad that the Select Committee saw the strong work DFID is doing, in partnership, on education in both Kenya and Uganda. We of course provide a range of support, and in our education support and our  programme work we look at all aspects of water, food and provision of healthcare, and at how we can support vulnerable households.

Stephen Doughty: I pay tribute to the many people across Cardiff, including local football teams, who have been raising funds for drought-affected areas, in Somaliland in particular. I have heard worrying concerns from the Government of Somaliland and others that some of the aid pledged to the region is not getting through. Will the Secretary of State investigate this and do what she can to provide support?

Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. We must always challenge the system, but also challenge Governments and authorities. As he will know, there are issues in Somaliland specifically, because it is very challenging and difficult terrain. I will always press, be vocal about and call out those who are preventing aid access, so I will absolutely look into the point he has made.

James Duddridge: Yesterday, I met the Ethiopian ambassador, who made the point that money is needed desperately, but at the same time let us not stereotype east Africa. It is a place of prosperity, where Louis Vuitton handbags and some of the finest gloves are made, as well as a place that requires help in the north.

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I saw that for myself when I went to Ethiopia; I went to one of the industrial parks. I think—this comes back to the point about economic development—that Ethiopia is now a great success story in moving from famine and poverty to prosperity and the development agenda. In effect, we want to see more of that.

Stuart McDonald: Is the Secretary of State aware of reports that the South Sudanese Government are planning to raise the cost of work permits for foreign nationals from $100 to $10,000? What steps can the Department take to ensure access for aid workers, and what success is it having in achieving that?

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. He will not be surprised to hear me say that we have been calling the South Sudanese Government out on that. Their behaviour and conduct in putting up their fees and blocking aid access have been absolutely appalling. We will continue to apply all pressure we can to make sure we tackle these issues directly.

David Lammy: I am sure the Secretary of State will commend Comic Relief for raising £73 million this year, but is she as concerned as I am that it showed a baby dying at 8.30 pm, before the watershed, and another baby dying at 9.10 pm, while the overall portrayal of Africa is very narrow? It needs to review the formula, because this is affecting primary school children’s expectations and understanding of a very complicated continent with 52 countries.

Priti Patel: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the great work of Comic Relief and how it raises so much money for all the domestic and international causes. I did not see the footage to which he refers, but  as we have touched on already in these exchanges, Africa has a bright future—there is no doubt about that—in terms of its population, economic development and prosperity, and we must focus on those things.

Patrick Grady: We join in passing on birthday wishes to the Secretary of State. Will she explain how DFID is helping local partners to deliver humanitarian aid in response to the east African crisis, and how is that helping the Department to make progress towards the target, agreed at last year’s world humanitarian summit, that 25% of humanitarian aid should be delivered through local partners by 2020?

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman asks a very important question. Following the world humanitarian summit, we have been leading the charge—working with others in the system, including the head of the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Stephen O’Brien—on how to get better efficiencies and improve ways of working, which are crucial. The east African crisis has shown how we can deliver aid more effectively through our partnership working, but also how we can reform our ways of working, which we need to improve continually.

Afghanistan

James Morris: What steps her Department is taking to support stability and prosperity in Afghanistan.

Priti Patel: Britain has a proven track record of supporting Afghanistan and a long-term commitment to the country’s future. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Monday, we will continue to support Afghanistan’s security and development because that is in Afghanistan’s interests, but also in our national interest.

James Morris: Although huge progress has been made in Afghanistan on the education of women and girls, does the Secretary of State agree that long-term stability and prosperity in Afghanistan depend on women and girls being able to make a full contribution to business, political and civic life?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I saw that myself when I visited Afghanistan recently. Women and girls are key to delivering real and long-lasting peace and stability in Afghanistan. Its Government are fully committed to that and we will continue to work with and support them to achieve it.

Graham Jones: Given the reported fall of Helmand province to the Taliban, what discussions has the Department had with other Departments on trying to eradicate the poppy crop in Afghanistan?

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point, particularly in light of the many sacrifices that were made in Helmand province. We work across Government on the issue, including with the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. We are working  at every level to strengthen capacity and resilience in  the country.

Caroline Spelman: DFID funding has enabled significant progress in maternal healthcare, as well as in educating girls, in the federally administered tribal areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Would the Secretary of State be willing to meet representatives of the local charity, the Community Motivation and Development Organisation, which is a recipient, on their next visit to London?

Priti Patel: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the vital and significant work that is being done. I would be delighted to meet them when they visit London soon.

United Nations (Aid Programmes)

Richard Arkless: What discussions her Department has had with UN institutions on the future funding of aid programmes.

Rory Stewart: Discussions with the United Nations are central to the Department’s work. The Secretary of State speaks regularly to the Secretary-General, and I am lucky enough to be able to speak regularly to the heads of UN agencies such as UNICEF, the World Food Programme and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Our focus is not just on funding, but on reform, in particular making sure that we have better co-ordination in humanitarian crises.

Richard Arkless: UN aid programmes are an investment on behalf of all citizens, so, given their importance, I was surprised to read some of the sweeping statements in the multilateral review. Does the Secretary of State accept that if institutions are to be reformed, perhaps that should be done with the co-operation of all member states, not at the unilateral discretion of her Department?

Rory Stewart: We believe very strongly that reform should be done with other member states and as part of a coalition. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the multilateral development review has pointed to issues where we think further reform is needed, but the United Nations is central to Britain’s response around the world. In fact, we are contributing £1.6 billion this year in our work with the United Nations, addressing some of the most vulnerable people on the planet.

Desmond Swayne: What success has been had in recruiting Gulf states to work through the UN system and in encouraging them to support our UN reform agenda?

Rory Stewart: Clearly, Gulf states, which are increasingly large parts of the economy of the world, are central to humanitarian response. There have been significant contributions from the Gulf—from Saudi, UAE and Qatar—and the Secretary of State continues to encourage those contributions, particularly those that address the famines in the horn of Africa.

Imran Hussain: As President Trump slashes aid spending, it is more important than ever that global, outward-looking nations live up to their responsibilities, not shirk them, to fill the aid  funding gaps. Will the Minister commit to working with our partners on increasing their aid spending, to show that despite Brexit the UK can still be a global leader embracing its global responsibilities?

Rory Stewart: We agree absolutely with that. It is central that other countries meet their targets. We are very proud to be able to stand tall in the world, particularly at a time when children are starving to death. That is why the Secretary of State is leading international coalitions to increase the international commitment to these desperate issues.

Topical Questions

Alan Brown: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Priti Patel: Britain’s small charities do amazing and often highly innovative work in some of the poorest places in the world. Small charities are being given a boost by the financial fund that I have mentioned. I urge all colleagues on both sides of the House to encourage small charities in their constituencies to come forward when the funds are opened this summer.

Alan Brown: The Secretary of State has already acknowledged that last Friday was World TB Day. I hope that she is aware that there is an emerging threat of the disease becoming drug-resistant, so what steps are the Government taking to eradicate the TB epidemic and provide treatment for drug-resistant strains?

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. TB is a deadly disease that affects so much of the world. We are demonstrating great leadership in this country on how we can tackle and invest in addressing TB as well as antimicrobial resistance, which is a big agenda that the UK has led on. We are funding more work, not only through the Ross Fund, as I said earlier, but through our research reviews.

Daniel Poulter: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the stigma that exists for people with mental ill health and the poor provision of mental health care services in many low and middle-income countries. What steps is her Department taking to combat that problem?

John Bercow: Order. We should be listening to the doctor. He had an important message, and I am not sure it was fully heard.

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the important issue of mental health in relation to the global goals and the international disability framework. DFID works across the world, through agencies as well as in countries such as Ghana, to integrate our research to see how we can do more with their health systems to deliver the right kind of support.

Andrew Slaughter: This year both the Secretary of State and the Foreign Secretary have visited Ethiopia, the second-largest recipient of  UK bilateral aid. Meanwhile, British citizen Andy Tsege has been on death row for over 1,000 days following a show trial and illegal kidnap. What is the Secretary of State doing to return Mr Tsege to his family in London?

Priti Patel: I am working with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on this issue. That is how we demonstrate joined-up government and leadership on difficult consular cases.

Mike Freer: What steps is my right hon. Friend’s Department taking to support women and girls, given the Trump Administration’s reintroduction of the Mexico City policy?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend has raised this issue with me previously. On support for family planning around the world in light of America’s policies, I am delighted to confirm that we are hosting a conference in July this year, working alongside Bill Gates, the private sector and others, to continue to demonstrate UK leadership on this issue while challenging others to step up.

Paul Blomfield: I recently met Youth Stop AIDS campaigners from my constituency who are optimistic about the Government’s international family planning summit in July, but they are concerned to ensure that HIV is an integral part of the conference. Will the Secretary of State assure me that an HIV organisation will be included in the civil society steering group that is being set up to advise on planning for the summit?

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point about the summit, HIV/AIDS and representation from civil society. I can give him a complete assurance that we are not only engaging but working with civil society organisations. Their voices will be at the heart of our further policy work and development.

Michael Tomlinson: My constituents want value for money and transparency in the international aid system. What more can the Secretary of State do to ensure that that happens?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is right to raise the important issue of delivering value for money in how we deliver UK aid. I can give him and the whole House a complete assurance that, through the reforms we are undertaking, every pound of UK aid—taxpayers’ money—will be spent on delivering for the world’s poorest.

Jeff Smith: Even before the famine South Sudan had one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world, but now the UN estimates that 33,000 pregnant women are on the brink of extreme hunger. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a need for specific aid focused on maternal health, sanitary products and the education of girls and women?

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman will know that the UK leads on maternal health support and advocacy for women and girls around the world, and that will continue. The areas he highlights are crucial to our leadership and to how UK aid is spent.

Chris Green: Some people have concerns about the idea of linking trade with aid, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the rule of law, which goes with trade, fosters the wider development of healthy legal practice?

Priti Patel: As I said earlier, the UK leads on prosperity and economic development. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that we do not tie in aid and trade, but there is a role for governance and building the prosperity agenda. That is effectively what we are doing through DFID’s economic development strategy.

Richard Arkless: There seems to be wide agreement across the House that foreign aid is a good thing and an investment, yet the public debate, driven by populism, is incredibly toxic. What are the Government doing to detoxify the public debate surrounding foreign aid?

Priti Patel: At a time when there is great need in the world, we have seen enormous generosity from UK taxpayers for the Disasters Emergency Committee east Africa appeal. We have seen the country, as well as the international community, come together to give support and aid to the people who need it the most. We are proud of that, and we stand tall in the world when we stand up for our obligations to the poorest in the world. That is, in effect, what we are doing.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Danny Kinahan: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 29 March.

Theresa May: I would like to update the House on last week’s terrorist attack. Since my statement on Thursday, the names of those who died have been released. They were Aysha Frade, Kurt Cochran, Leslie Rhodes and, of course, PC Keith Palmer. I am sure that Members of all parties will join me in offering our deepest condolences to their friends and families. The police and security services’ investigation continues; two people have been arrested and remain in custody.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Danny Kinahan: I echo those sentiments and congratulate the Prime Minister on all the good work done last week and since that time.
I also congratulate the Prime Minister and the Government on triggering article 50 today. I know that this is a momentous action for the whole of the United Kingdom. Although I, in common with the right hon. Lady, campaigned to stay in, we recognise that the people have spoken, and we offer the Ulster Unionist party’s full support in ensuring that the negotiations deliver the best for the whole of the United Kingdom, and particularly for Northern Ireland.
I ask the Prime Minister to confirm that, in the extremely improbable event that a border poll should take place regarding the future of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom during her premiership, her Government would fully support any official remain campaign, just as the Government have done in regard of the EU and indeed Scotland.

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that today we give effect to the democratic decision of the people of the United Kingdom, who voted for us to leave the European Union. It was a call to make the United Kingdom a country that works for everyone, not just the privileged few. We are, of course, fully committed within that to ensuring that the unique interests of Northern Ireland are protected and advanced as we establish our negotiating position. Our position has always been clear—that we strongly support the Belfast agreement, including the principle of consent that Northern Ireland’s constitutional position is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland to determine. As our manifesto made clear, we have a preference for Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom, and we will never be neutral in expressing our support for that, because I believe fundamentally in the strength of our Union.

Ranil Jayawardena: Pupils and parents deserve good schools and real choice in education, including schools that are focused unashamedly on academic rigour. Will my right hon. Friend tell us when the Government will open applications for the new wave of free schools, and will she confirm that they will be genuinely free to be run as they wish, serving the local community and creating schools that work for everyone?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe that schools should be free to be run as best suits them. We are putting autonomy and freedom in the hands of strong leaders and outstanding teachers so that they can deliver an excellent education. We want to get out of the way of outstanding education providers so that they can set up the types of schools that parents want. That is why we have set out our new plans to remove the ban on new grammar schools and the restrictions on new faith schools. It is a complex area, but we expect to announce the detail of the next wave of free school applications following the publication of our schools White Paper.

Jeremy Corbyn: I want to begin by paying tribute, as the Prime Minister did, to the emergency services across the country, and especially to all those who responded to the Westminster attack last Wednesday and those who turned out to help the victims of the New Ferry explosion last Saturday. Our thoughts remain with the injured and those who have lost loved ones, and we especially thank the police for their ongoing investigations. Will the Prime Minister assure us that the police will be given all the necessary support and resources to take them through this very difficult period of investigating what happened last Wednesday?

Theresa May: I join the right hon. Gentleman in praising the work of our emergency services, who, as he has pointed out, have to deal with a wide range of  incidents. Our focus in the House has most recently been on the attack that took place last Wednesday, but we should never forget that, day in and day out, our emergency services are working on our behalf and often putting themselves in danger as a result of the work that they do.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have, of course, been keeping in touch with both the security services and the Metropolitan police—as has my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—about the current investigation of the attack last week, and about future security arrangements. I can also assure him that they have the resources that they need in order to carry out their vital work.

Jeremy Corbyn: Of course we all pay tribute to the police for the work that they do, but there are some problems. Between 2015 and 2018 there will be a real-terms cut of £330 million in central Government funding for police forces. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that police forces all over the country have the necessary resources with which to do the job?

Theresa May: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we have protected the police budget in the comprehensive spending review. I also remind him that the former shadow Home Secretary, his colleague the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), said during the 2015 Labour party conference that
“savings can be found. The Police say 5 per cent to 10 per cent over the Parliament is just about do-able.”
We did not accept that. We have actually protected the police budget. I have been speaking to police forces, as has my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and they are very clear about the fact that they have the resources that they need for the work that they are doing.

Jeremy Corbyn: A survey undertaken recently by the Police Federation reveals that 55% of serving police officers say that their morale is low because of how their funding has been treated. Frontline policing is vital to tackling crime and terrorism, but there are 20,000 fewer police officers and 12,000 fewer officers on the frontline than there were in 2010. I ask the Prime Minister again: will she think again about the cuts in policing, and will she guarantee that policing on the frontline will be protected so that every community can be assured that it has the police officers it needs?

Theresa May: As I said to the right hon. Gentleman, we have protected police budgets, including the precept that the police are able to raise locally. But let us just think about what has happened since 2010. Since then, crimes that are traditionally measured by the independent crime survey have fallen by a third, to a record low. That is due to the work of hard-working police officers up and down the country, and they have been backed by this Government. Yes, we have made them more accountable through directly elected police and crime commissioners, and yes, there has been reform of policing—including reform of the Police Federation, which was very necessary—but we have ensured that they have the resources to do their job, and we now see crime at a record low.

Victoria Atkins: The Royal Air Force is preparing to fly Typhoons from RAF Coningsby in my constituency to Romania to  support our NATO allies on the border with Russia. That is happening as President Putin is locking up his political opponents and crushing calls for democracy. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as we leave the European Union, the United Kingdom will continue to lead NATO in defending that vital border, and will she pay tribute to the members of the armed forces who safeguard our democracy at home and abroad?

Theresa May: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the men and women of our armed forces. They are the best in the world. They work tirelessly to keep us safe, and we owe them every gratitude for doing so. I can also assure her that our commitment to collective defence and security through NATO is as strong as ever. We will meet our NATO pledge to spend 2% of GDP on defence in every year of this decade,  and we plan to spend £178 billion on the equipment plan to 2025.
My hon. Friend referred to the work being done by the Royal Air Force in relation to Romania. With NATO, we are deploying a battalion to Estonia and a reconnaissance squadron to Poland, and I think that shows our very clear commitment to our collective security and defence.

Angus Robertson: We associate ourselves with the condolences given by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour party and their praise for the emergency and security services during and in the wake of the appalling terrorist atrocity last week.
Last year, the Prime Minister promised that before she triggered article 50 on leaving the European Union she would secure a UK-wide approach—an agreement—with the Governments of—[Interruption.] Last year, the Prime Minister did make that promise: she promised that there would be an agreement with the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland before she triggered article 50. The Prime Minister has now triggered article 50, and she has done so without an agreement; there is no agreement. Why has she broken her promise and broken her word?

Theresa May: I have been very clear throughout, since the first visit that I made as Prime Minister to Edinburgh last July, that we were going to work with the devolved Administrations and that we would develop a UK-wide approach, but that it would be a UK approach that was taken into the negotiations and that it would be the United Kingdom Government who took forward that position—and I would simply remind the right hon. Gentleman that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom.

Angus Robertson: People viewing will note that the Prime Minister did not deny that she said she would seek a UK-wide approach and agreement with the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and there is no agreement.
The Scottish Government were elected with a higher percentage of the vote—a bigger electoral mandate—than the UK Government. Yesterday the Scottish Parliament voted by 69 to 59 that people in Scotland should have a choice about their future. After the negotiations on the European Union are concluded, there will be a period for democratic approval of the outcome. That choice  will be exercised in this Parliament, in the European Parliament and in 27 member states of the European Union. Given that everybody else will have a choice at that time, will the people of Scotland have a choice about their future?

Theresa May: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are taking forward the views of the United Kingdom into the negotiations with the European Union on the United Kingdom exiting the European Union. The Scottish nationalist party consistently talks—[Hon. Members: “National.”]

John Bercow: Order. Ms Cherry, this is very unseemly heckling. You are a distinguished QC; you would not behave like that in the Scottish courts—you would be chucked out.

Theresa May: The SNP consistently talks about independence as the only subject it wishes to talk about. What I say to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues is this: now is not the time to be talking about a second independence referendum. On today of all days we should be coming together as a United Kingdom to get the best deal for Britain.

Julian Sturdy: Improving vocational and technical education is vital in closing our productivity gap, so can the Prime Minister assure me that vocational education will enjoy equal status with academic education, so that as we leave the EU our young people can be equipped to build the high-skilled economy of the future?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. It is essential for young people that we give vocational and technical education the right esteem and focus, because that is essential in addressing our productivity gap. We want to deliver a world-leading technical education system and create two genuine options for young people that are equal in esteem. At the Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a significant package of investment to implement the most ambitious post-16 reforms since the introduction of A-levels 70 years ago. We are going to be investing an extra half a billion pounds a year in England’s technical education system and introducing maintenance loans to support those studying high-level technical qualifications at prestigious institutes of technology and national colleges.

Bill Esterson: The Treasury Committee says that for many small companies, having to fill in a tax return every three months will mean facing disaster, and the Federation of Small Businesses says that the extra annual cost is likely to be at least £2,700 a year—yet another burden on business from this Government. The Prime Minister got it wrong  on national insurance; is she going to backtrack on tax returns as well?

Theresa May: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have listened to the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made in the Budget, when he indicated that he would delay the introduction of the change for a year for the smallest businesses below the VAT threshold. It is right that Her Majesty’s Revenue  and Customs tries to move to a greater digitisation of how it operates, enabling it to provide a better service to those who are completing their forms. We should always remember that aspect of what is being proposed.

David Mackintosh: I welcome the additional money that the Government have given for adult social care, but it is important that we also look at long-term solutions. As part of the long-term review, will the Prime Minister look at some of the cases in my constituency, and at the issues with how the system works for Northamptonshire County Council and Northampton general hospital?

Theresa May: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s welcome for the extra money—the £2 billion that was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget—that is going into social care. That shows that we have recognised the pressures and demands on social care, but it is also important that we ensure that best practice is delivered across the whole country. It  is not just about money, so we are also trying to find a long-term, sustainable solution that will help local authorities to learn from each other to raise standards across the whole system. We will bring forward proposals in a Green Paper later this year to put the state-funded system on a more secure and sustainable footing.

Jeremy Corbyn: As Home Secretary, the Prime Minister clearly did not protect police budgets. Last week, she told me four times:
“We have protected the schools budget.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 854-855.]
Does she still stand by that statement?

Theresa May: We have protected schools’ budgets, and we are putting record funding into schools.

Jeremy Corbyn: Today, the Public Accounts Committee says of the Department for Education:
“The Department does not seem to understand the pressures that schools are already under.”
It goes on to say that
“Funding per pupil is reducing in real terms”,
and that school budgets will be cut by £3 billion—equivalent to 8%—by 2020. Is the Public Accounts Committee wrong?

Theresa May: What we will see over the course of this Parliament is £230 billion going into our schools, but what matters is the quality of education in schools. An additional 1.8 million children are in good or outstanding schools, and this Government’s policy is to ensure that every child gets a good school place.

Jeremy Corbyn: The daily experience of many parents who have children in school is that they receive letters asking for money. One parent, Elizabeth, wrote to me to say that she has received a letter from her daughter’s school asking for a monthly donation to top up the reduced funds that it is receiving. This Government’s cuts to schools are betraying a generation of our children. If the Prime Minister is right, the parents are wrong, the teachers are wrong, the Institute for Fiscal Studies is wrong, the National Audit Office is wrong, and the Education Policy Institute is wrong. Now the Public  Accounts Committee, which includes eight Conservative Members, is also wrong. Which organisation does back the Prime Minister’s view on education spending in our schools?

Theresa May: As I have just said to the right hon. Gentleman, we said that we would protect school funding, and we have; there is a real-terms protection for the schools budget. We said that we would protect the money following children into schools, and we have; the schools budget reaches £42 billion, as pupil numbers rise, in 2019-20. But I also have to say to him that it is about the quality of education that children are receiving, with 1.8 million more children in good or outstanding schools than there were under the Labour Government.
Time and again, the right hon. Gentleman stands up at Prime Minister’s questions and asks questions that would lead to more spending. Let us look at what he has said recently: on 11 January, more spending; on 8usb February, more spending; on 22 February, more spending; on 1 and 8 March, more spending; and on 15 and 22 March, more spending. Barely a PMQs goes by that he does not call for more public spending. When it comes to spending money that it does not have, Labour simply cannot help itself. It is the same old Labour: spend today and give somebody else the bill tomorrow. Well, we will not do that to the next generation.

Munitions Workers (Award)

Bill Wiggin: If she will introduce an award in recognition of the contribution made by munitions workers in the first and second world wars.

Theresa May: I am sure everyone in the House will want to join me in paying tribute to the thousands who worked in munitions factories in both world wars, often in very dangerous conditions. They produced vital equipment for the armed forces that helped us to victory. I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise that, for practical reasons, it is not possible to pursue individual awards, but the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy would be happy to work with him to look at further ways of recognising the collective effort of former munitions workers.

Bill Wiggin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. These ladies found that the chemicals in the shells turned their skin yellow, and they were nicknamed canary girls. I know my right hon. Friend is exceptionally busy at the moment, but could she find just a few moments in her diary to meet me and some of these canary girls to recognise their service?

Theresa May: I would be very happy to meet some canary girls. As I said, their work was vital to the war effort. Their work was, in one sense, absolutely routine, but in another sense, it was extremely dangerous, and we should recognise their efforts.

Engagements

Carolyn Harris: The Prime Minister will be aware that the Welsh Labour Government have established a children’s funeral fund. Many independent and leading funeral providers, such  as The Co-operative and Dignity, have also indicated that there will be no charges for children’s and young people’s funerals. I know that she is a compassionate woman, and I know that she understands the importance of a children’s funeral fund, so will she agree to work with me to further establish this fund, to bring some comfort to bereaved parents in their darkest hour?

Theresa May: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who has campaigned tirelessly on this issue. Obviously, she is not just a passionate campaigner, but has on many occasions spoken movingly in this House about her own experience, which she is bringing to bear on this issue. I welcome the decision that has been taken by the Co-op to waive funeral fees, and I recognise the actions of the Welsh Government. Of course there is some financial support available, but we are looking at the issue and the problems faced by parents. We are looking at what more can be done through cross-Government work, and I will ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who is leading on that work, to meet with her to talk about the idea.

David Davies: As the Prime Minister will know, the Budget gave an extra £200 million to the Welsh Labour Government in order to provide business rates relief. Does she agree with me and the leader of Monmouthshire County Council, Peter Fox OBE, that Welsh Labour must now commit to spending that money on supporting Welsh businesses and giving them the same level of support that is being provided in England by this Conservative Government?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As he says, at the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a £200 million boost for the Welsh Government’s budget. They will be able to use that money to support their own priorities, but the people of Wales will be able to send a very clear signal about those priorities by voting for Conservative councillors, like Peter Fox, on 4 May. It is the UK Government’s actions to support ordinary working families throughout the country that will ensure that Wales benefits from an economy that works for everyone.

Tulip Siddiq: During the EU referendum campaign, the now Foreign Secretary urged people to

Theresa May: I am very happy—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Boris is sitting perfectly comfortably, and there is an air of repose about the fellow, to which we are accustomed. Let us hear from the Prime Minister.

Theresa May: I am very happy to tell the hon. Lady that, of course, when this country leaves the European Union, we will have control of our budgets and we will decide how that money is spent.

William Wragg: With modification, schools in my constituency welcome the national funding formula. Given the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution, I hope that the next part of my question does not land me on the naughty step. Given that Stockport schools and other f40 schools have been at the bottom of the funding pile for years and therefore have less scope for efficiencies, will my right hon. Friend consider providing more immediate support to them?

Theresa May: As my hon. Friend is saying, we are aiming to end the postcode lottery of schools funding, and as I said, schools funding is now at a record high. On the minimum funding level, as I have said before, the Department for Education has heard representations on the issue on this national funding formula and will, of course, be considering those. This was a consultation, and there have been a lot of responses to it, but it is an historic and complex reform. There has been general agreement for many years that reform is needed. We want to get this right, which is why we are carefully considering the representations.

Alex Salmond: After nine months of this Prime Minister’s approach to Brexit, Northern Ireland is deadlocked, the Welsh are alienated, Scotland is going for a referendum, the English are split down the middle, and Brexit MPs are walking out of Commons Committees because they do not like home truths. Has the Prime Minister considered, in terms of invoking article 50, that

Theresa May: What the UK Government are doing in invoking article 50 is putting into practice the democratic vote of the British people on 23 June last year in a referendum. There was a referendum in 2014 in Scotland, when the Scottish people voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. I suggest the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues put that into practice.

Matt Warman: Three quarters of my constituents voted to leave the European Union. Does the Prime Minister agree that triggering article 50 marks a watershed moment, not only in this country’s control of immigration and our sovereignty, but in listening to the views of people who were forgotten for far too long?

Theresa May: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; in invoking article 50, we are not just putting into practice the views of the British people as set out in that referendum on 23 June last year. Crucially, that was not just a vote about leaving the EU; it was a vote about changing this country for the future. This Government have a clear plan for Britain that will change this country, and that will see us with a more global outlook, a stronger economy, a fairer society and a more united nation.

Marion Fellows: The people expect the Prime Minister to follow her party’s manifesto, and to abide by a majority vote of this Parliament, so why does she say that the First Minister of Scotland should do the opposite?

Theresa May: What I say is that as we face this historic moment of invoking article 50 and setting in process the negotiations for the future of this country and its relationship with the European Union, now is the time to pull together and not try to hang apart.

Derek Thomas: On Friday, thousands of people up and down this country will be raising funds for and awareness of brain tumour research. Many of them will know someone, or have had a family member, who has had a brain tumour or is suffering from one, yet brain tumour research receives only about 1% of all cancer research funding, despite this being the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40. Will the Prime Minister join me in commending all these people raising awareness and funds, and see what more we can do to increase funding for brain tumour research?

Theresa May: This is a very important area, and the UK has a good record of research on brain tumours. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the people who are raising funds for this important cause should be commended. As he said, many of them will have had personal experience of brain tumours, in one way or another. It is important that we recognise that there are many killers out there that often do not receive the publicity and support that other causes get. We should recognise their importance and commend those who are raising funds.

John Spellar: As we enter the world of article 50, will the Prime Minister say what she is doing to ensure that national and local government prioritise the buying of British goods and services? I have to say that her record on police vehicles when she was Home Secretary does not give us much cause for optimism.

Theresa May: We have, as a Government, been encouraging the procurement of British goods and services. The right hon. Gentleman asks what we can do for local authorities; if people around the country want local authorities that take their best interests to heart, they should vote Conservative.

Paul Scully: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on invoking article 50 today. Does she agree that this needs to be the end of the phoney war—the end of the posturing we have heard from Members on the Opposition Benches—and that we must now focus on the detail for every industry, sector and community, so that we get a bespoke deal that we can all get behind?

Theresa May: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Now is the time for us to come together, and to be united across the House and across the country to ensure that we work for the best possible deal for the United Kingdom, and the best possible future for us all.

Nigel Dodds: The Prime Minister has rightly emphasised her determination to deliver for all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom on this historic day. While others are content to moan and whine, we want to see that delivery, and we are confident that she will make it happen. In Northern Ireland, some have walked away from their responsibilities  with regard to devolution, but we want to see devolution up and running, and to have a functioning Northern Ireland Government, and we have set no preconditions in the way of that. If others continue to stay away from devolution and walk away, will the Prime Minister pledge to work ever more closely with those of us in this House to defend and protect the interests of Northern Ireland?

Theresa May: We all want to work together to ensure that we protect the best interests of Northern Ireland. As the right hon. Gentleman just said, ensuring that we have strong devolved government in Northern Ireland is important for the future. It is important, so that we can build on the significant progress that has been made in recent years for the people of Northern Ireland. I urge all parties to come to the talks with a view to finding a way through, so that Northern Ireland can once again be restored to devolved government.

James Berry: Does the Prime Minister agree that social media companies need to take action now to remove extremist and hate materials from their platforms proactively, and to foot the bill for the police, who are currently doing those companies’ dirty work at the taxpayer’s expense?

Theresa May: The whole question of working with the companies to ensure that extremist material is removed as quickly as possible is not new; that work has been going on for a number of years. Through the counter terrorism internet referral unit, we have a process that enables the police to take material down. Some 250,000 pieces of material have been taken down from the internet since February 2010, and there has been a significant increase in that activity in the past couple of years or so. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will meet the companies later this week to talk to them about this important issue. We do not want to see extremist material on the internet, and we want to see companies taking action to remove material that encourages hate and division.

Alison McGovern: Late on Saturday night, a massive explosion devastated New Ferry in my constituency. We are thinking of all those who are hurt. It is a miracle that more people were not injured. The community now faces significant dereliction. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking all those who looked after my community over the weekend and in recent days? Will she arrange for me a meeting with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, so that we can discuss how the Government can help us to rebuild New Ferry?

Theresa May: I am very happy to do both of those things. First, I commend and thank all those in the emergency services and others who worked so hard to support the hon. Lady’s local community when the devastating explosion took place. That work will continue; it did not happen just over the weekend. Support will be given to the community into the future. I am very happy to ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to meet her and discuss how that community can be rebuilt and can overcome the impact of this explosion.

ARTICLE 50

Theresa May: Today, the Government act on the democratic will of the British people, and they act, too, on the clear and convincing position of this House. A few minutes ago in Brussels, the United Kingdom’s permanent representative to the EU handed a letter to the President of the European Council on my behalf confirming the Government’s decision to invoke article 50 of the treaty on European Union. The article 50 process is now under way and, in accordance with the wishes of the British people, the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. This is an historic moment from which there can be no turning back. Britain is leaving the European Union. We will make our own decisions and our own laws, take control of the things that matter most to us, and take the opportunity to build a stronger, fairer Britain— a country that our children and grandchildren are proud to call home. That is our ambition and our opportunity, and it is what this Government are determined to do.
At moments such as these—great turning points in our national story—the choices that we make define the character of our nation. We can choose to say that the task ahead is too great. We can choose to turn our face to the past and believe that it cannot be done. Or we can look forward with optimism and hope, and believe in the enduring power of the British spirit. I choose to believe in Britain and that our best days lie ahead. I do so because I am confident that we have the vision and the plan to use this moment to build a better Britain.
Leaving the European Union presents us with a unique opportunity. It is this generation’s chance to shape a brighter future for our country—a chance to step back and ask ourselves what kind of country we want to be. My answer is clear: I want the United Kingdom to emerge from this period of change stronger, fairer, more united and more outward-looking than ever before. I want us to be a secure, prosperous, tolerant country, a magnet for international talent and a home to the pioneers and innovators who will shape the world ahead. I want us to be a truly global Britain: the best friend and neighbour to our European partners, but a country that reaches beyond the borders of Europe, too—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I apologise for having to interrupt the Prime Minister. Mr Boswell, calm yourself. You must try to learn to behave in a statesmanlike fashion. That is your long-term goal—it may be very long-term, but it should be a goal. I say this to the House: you can study the record; I will want all colleagues to have the chance to question the Prime Minister. This is a very important statement, but it is reasonable to expect that she gets a courteous hearing, and that every other colleague then gets a courteous hearing.

Theresa May: I want us to be a truly global Britain: the best friend and neighbour to our European partners, but a country that reaches beyond the borders of Europe, too—a country that goes out into the world to build relationships with old friends and new allies alike. That is why I have set out a clear and ambitious plan for the negotiations ahead. It is a plan for a new deep and special partnership between Britain and the  European Union—a partnership of values; a partnership of interests; a partnership based on co-operation in areas such as security and economic affairs; and a partnership that works in the best interests of the United Kingdom, the European Union and the wider world. Perhaps now, more than ever, the world needs the liberal, democratic values of Europe—[Laughter.]

John Bercow: Order.

Theresa May: Perhaps now, more than ever, the world needs the liberal, democratic values of Europe—values that the United Kingdom shares. That is why, although we are leaving the institutions of the European Union, we are not leaving Europe. We will remain a close friend and ally. We will be a committed partner. We will play our part to ensure that Europe is able to project its values and defend itself from security threats, and we will do all that we can to help the European Union to prosper and succeed.
In the letter that has been delivered to President Tusk today, copies of which I have placed in the Library of the House, I have been clear that the deep and special partnership that we seek is in the best interests of the United Kingdom and of the European Union, too. I have been clear that we will work constructively in a spirit of sincere co-operation to bring this partnership into being, and I have been clear that we should seek to agree the terms of this future partnership, alongside those of our withdrawal, within the next two years.
I am ambitious for Britain, and the objectives I have set out for these negotiations remain. We will deliver certainty wherever possible so that business, the public sector and everybody else has as much clarity as we can provide as we move through the process. That is why tomorrow we will publish a White Paper confirming our plans to convert the acquis into British law so that everyone will know where they stand, and it is why I have been clear that the Government will put the final deal agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force.
We will take control of our own laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain. Leaving the European Union will mean that our laws will be made in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, and those laws will be interpreted not by judges in Luxembourg, but in courts across this country.
We will strengthen the Union of the four nations that comprise our United Kingdom. We will negotiate as one United Kingdom, taking account of the specific interests of every nation and region of the UK. When it comes to the powers that we will take back from Europe, we will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be passed on to the devolved Administrations. But no decisions currently taken by the devolved Administrations will be removed from them. It is the expectation of the Government that the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will see a significant increase in their decision-making power as a result of this process.
We want to maintain the common travel area with the Republic of Ireland. There should be no return to the borders of the past. We will control immigration so that we continue to attract the brightest and the best to work or study in Britain, but manage the process properly so that our immigration system serves the national  interest. We will seek to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who are already living in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can. This is set out very clearly in the letter as an early priority for the talks ahead.
We will ensure that workers’ rights are fully protected and maintained. Indeed, under my leadership, the Government will not only protect the rights of workers but build on them. We will pursue a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union that allows for the freest possible trade in goods and services between Britain and the EU’s member states, that gives British companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate within European markets, and that lets European businesses do the same in Britain. European leaders have said many times that we cannot cherry-pick and remain members of the single market without accepting the four freedoms that are indivisible. We respect that position and, as accepting those freedoms is incompatible with the democratically expressed will of the British people, we will no longer be members of the single market.
We are going to make sure that we can strike trade agreements with countries from outside the European Union, too, because important though our trade with the EU is and will remain, it is clear that the UK needs to increase significantly its trade with the fastest growing export markets in the world. We hope to continue to collaborate with our European partners in the areas of science, education, research and technology so that the UK is one of the best places for science and innovation. We seek continued co-operation with our European partners in important areas such as crime, terrorism and foreign affairs. And it is our aim to deliver a smooth and orderly Brexit, reaching an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two-year article 50 process has concluded, and then moving into a phased process of implementation in which Britain, the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements that will exist between us.
We understand that there will be consequences for the UK of leaving the EU. We know that we will lose influence over the rules that affect the European economy. We know that UK companies that trade with the EU will have to align with rules agreed by institutions of which we are no longer a part, just as we do in other overseas markets—we accept that. However, we approach these talks constructively, respectfully and in a spirit of sincere co-operation, for it is in the interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union that we should use this process to deliver our objectives in a fair and orderly manner. It is in the interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union that there should be as little disruption as possible. And it is in the interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union that Europe should remain strong, prosperous and capable of projecting its values in the world.
At a time when the growth of global trade is slowing and there are signs that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many parts of the world, Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interests of all our citizens. With Europe’s security more fragile today than at any time since the end of the cold war, weakening our co-operation and failing to stand up for European  values would be a costly mistake. Our vote to leave the EU was no rejection of the values that we share as fellow Europeans. As a European country, we will continue to play our part in promoting and supporting those values during the negotiations and once they are done.
We will continue to be reliable partners, willing allies and close friends. We want to continue to buy goods and services from the EU, and sell it ours. We want to trade with the EU as freely as possible, and work with one another to make sure we are all safer, more secure and more prosperous through continued friendship. Indeed, in an increasingly unstable world, we must continue to forge the closest possible security co-operation to keep our people safe. We face the same global threats from terrorism and extremism. That message was only reinforced by the abhorrent attack on Westminster bridge and this place last week, so there should be no reason why we should not agree a new deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU that works for us all.
I know that this is a day of celebration for some and disappointment for others. The referendum last June was divisive at times. Not everyone shared the same point of view or voted the same way. The arguments on both sides were passionate. But when I sit around the negotiating table in the months ahead, I will represent every person in the United Kingdom: young and old; rich and poor; city, town, country, and all the villages and hamlets in between; and, yes, those EU nationals who have made this country their home. It is my fierce determination to get the right deal for every single person in this country for, as we face the opportunities ahead of us on this momentous journey, our shared values, interests and ambitions can—and must—bring us together.
We all want to see a Britain that is stronger than it is today. We all want a country that is fairer so that everyone has the chance to succeed. We all want a nation that is safe and secure for our children and grandchildren. We all want to live in a truly global Britain that gets out and builds relationships with old friends and new allies around the world. These are the ambitions of this Government’s plan for Britain—ambitions that unite us, so that we are no longer defined by the vote we cast, but by our determination to make a success of the result.
We are one great Union of people and nations with a proud history and a bright future. Now that the decision to leave has been made and the process is under way, it is time to come together, for this great national moment needs a great national effort—an effort to shape a stronger future for Britain. So let us do so together. Let us come together and work together. Let us together choose to believe in Britain with optimism and hope, for if we do, we can make the most of the opportunities ahead. We can together make a success of this moment, and we can together build a stronger, fairer, better Britain—a Britain our children and grandchildren are proud to call home. I commend this statement to the House.

Jeremy Corbyn: I would like to thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of her statement.
Today, we embark on the country’s most important negotiations in modern times. The British people made the decision to leave the European Union and Labour respects that decision. The next steps along this journey are the most crucial. If the Prime Minister is to unite the country, as she says she aims to do, the Government need to listen, consult and represent the whole country, not just the hard-line Tory ideologues on her own Benches.
Britain is going to change as a result of leaving the European Union; the question is how. There are Conservatives who want to use Brexit to turn this country into a low-wage tax haven. Labour is determined to invest in a high-skill, high-tech, high-wage future, and to rebuild and transform Britain so that no one and no community is left behind. The direction the Prime Minister is threatening to take this country in is both reckless and damaging, and Labour will not give this Government a free hand to use Brexit to attack rights and protections and to cut services, or to create a tax dodger’s paradise.
Let me be clear: the Prime Minister says that no deal is better than a bad deal, but the reality is that no deal is a bad deal. Less than a year ago, the Treasury estimated that leaving the European Union on World Trade Organisation terms would lead to a 7.5% fall in our GDP and a £45 billion loss in tax receipts. Has the Treasury updated those figures or do they still stand? If they have been updated, can they be published? If not, what deal could be worse than those consequences of no deal? It would be a national failure of historic proportions if the Prime Minister came back from Brussels without having secured protection for jobs and living standards, so we will use every parliamentary opportunity to ensure the Government are held to account at every stage of the negotiations.
We all have an interest in ensuring the Prime Minister gets the best deal for this country. To safeguard jobs and living standards, we do need full access to the single market. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union seems to agree on this. He stated in this House on 24 January that the Government’s plan is:
“a comprehensive free trade agreement and a comprehensive customs agreement that will deliver the exact same benefits as we have”.—[Official Report, 24 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 169.]
That was what was pledged, so will the Prime Minister confirm today that she intends to deliver a trade and customs agreement with “the exact same benefits”? The same goes for protecting workers’ rights and environmental standards, protecting Britain’s nations and regions, protecting Britain’s financial sector and services, and making sure there is no return to a hard border in Northern Ireland.
When does the Prime Minister expect to be able to guarantee the rights of all those EU nationals who live and work in this country, and make such a massive and welcome contribution to it, and of those British nationals who live in all parts of the European Union, including by guaranteeing that their UK pensions will not be frozen post-Brexit?
Brexit would be a huge task for any Government, yet so far this Government seem utterly complacent about the scale of the task ahead. Government Ministers cannot make up their minds about the real objective. The Foreign Secretary—he is in the Chamber today—said in October:
“Our policy is having our cake and eating it.”
How apposite from the Foreign Secretary. Today, on BBC Radio 4, the Chancellor said:
“we can’t have our cake and eat it”.
Maybe they should get together and talk about that.
At one level, those might seem like flippant exchanges from Ministers, but they do reflect serious differences about Britain’s negotiating aims. The Government must speak with a united voice. However, the Foreign Secretary is the same man who promised our national health service £350 million pounds a week once we left the EU. Now he believes that leaving the EU without a deal would be “perfectly okay”. It would not be perfectly okay—it would damage our economy and people’s living standards. Will the Prime Minister confirm that she rejects such complacency?
Labour has set out our tests for the Government’s Brexit negotiations, and we will use all means possible to make sure we hold them to their word on full access to the single market, on protecting Britain from being dragged into a race to the bottom, and on ensuring that our future relationship with the European Union is strong and co-operative—a relationship in which we can work together to bring prosperity and peace to our continent. If the Prime Minister can deliver a deal that meets our tests, that will be fine—we will back her. More than ever, Britain needs a Government that will deliver for the whole country, not just the few, and that is the ultimate test of the Brexit deal that the Prime Minister must now secure.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that the Labour party respects the outcome of the referendum and the process that is now under way. He said that the next steps are the most crucial—the most important—and, of course, we now enter that formal process of negotiation.
It does seem, however, that the message that the right hon. Gentleman has sent today has not got through to all his Front Benchers. I understand that as the Cabinet met this morning to approve our course, his shadow International Trade Secretary tweeted a photo of me signing the A50 letter, claiming I was “signing away” our country’s future. I am afraid that that is what we see all too often from Labour: talking down Britain; desperate for the negotiations to fail; and out of touch with ordinary working people.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the tests—I will come on to those—and asked me specifically about EU nationals. I expressly referred to that in the letter to President Tusk and made it clear that I would hope that we could deal with this issue of EU nationals here and UK nationals in other member states at as early a stage as possible in the negotiations. As I have said in this House before, I believe that there is good will on both sides to do that.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the tests that the Labour party has set out for the negotiations. I have been looking at those tests because, actually, there are principles that the Government have, time and time again, said we are determined to meet. He asks if the final deal will ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU. Yes, and in my letter to President Tusk, that is exactly what I set out our intentions to be. Will the deal deliver the same benefits we currently  have as a member of the single market and the customs union? We have been clear that we want to get the best possible deal, and free and frictionless trade. Will the deal protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime? Yes. Will the deal deliver for all regions and nations of the UK? We have been very clear that we are taking all nations and regions into account, as I say in the letter to President Tusk. As I said during Prime Minister’s questions, we expect that, as powers are repatriated, the devolved Administrations will see a significant increase in their decision making.
The right hon. Gentleman’s fifth test is: will the deal defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom? We have been very clear that workers’ rights will be protected—they are not up for negotiation under this Government. Perhaps he should listen to his own Mayor of London, who has said:
“to give credit to the government, I don’t think they want to weaken workers’ rights…there’s been some anxiety…I’ve seen no evidence from the conversations I’ve had with senior members of the government that that’s their aspiration or their intention or something they want to do.”
But the Labour party has set out a sixth test that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman mentioned specifically, and perhaps that is because of the confusion in the Labour party. The sixth test is, “Will the deal ensure fair management of migration?” What we see on that is a confused picture from the Labour party. The shadow Home Secretary says that freedom of movement is a worker’s right, and the right hon. Gentleman himself said:
“Labour is not wedded to freedom of movement for EU citizens as a point of principle, but I don’t want that to be misinterpreted, nor do we rule it out.”
Little wonder that nobody has any idea of the Labour party’s position on that issue.
As I said earlier, on today of all days we should be coming together. We should be accepting the ambition for our country for the future. We should not be talking down the negotiations as the right hon. Gentleman does. We should set our ambition, our optimism and our determination to get the best possible deal for everybody in the United Kingdom.

Bill Cash: The Leader of the Opposition’s remarks were breathtaking. For decades, from Maastricht onwards, he voted with us over and over and over again.
Today is an historic day indeed. Can my right hon. Friend reaffirm that at the very heart of this letter lies the democratic decision of the referendum of UK voters given to them by a sovereign Act of Parliament by six to one in this House, enabling the British people to regain their birthright to govern themselves for which people fought and died over generations? The referendum was followed by a massive majority of 372 in this House of Commons on the Third Reading of the withdrawal Bill itself. Trade and co-operation, yes; European government, no.

Theresa May: I think I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he seeks if I quote from the opening paragraph of my letter to President Tusk. The very first line is to reaffirm that:
“On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union.”
But I go on to say that we want
“the European Union to succeed and prosper.”
The vote was not a
“rejection of the values we share as fellow Europeans…Instead, the referendum was a vote to restore, as we see it, our national self-determination.”

Angus Robertson: It is important for everybody to remember on this day that in the referendum on the European Union, the people of Scotland voted by 62% to remain in the European Union. Every single local government area in the country voted to remain in the European Union. This happened two years after Scottish voters were told that they had to vote no to Scottish independence to remain in the EU. Yet ironically, this is exactly what will happen now because of the will of the majority elsewhere in the United Kingdom being imposed on the people of Scotland.
Last year, as I have raised repeatedly in this Chamber, the Prime Minister made a commitment to a UK-wide approach—an agreement with the Governments of Scotland, of Wales, and of Northern Ireland. Since then, the Scottish Government have published a compromise suggestion, at its heart a differentiated plan that could satisfy people in Scotland and the rest of the UK. The Prime Minister could have said that she would try to seek an agreement with European partners on the plan which could have protected Scotland’s place in the single European market—but she did not. The Prime Minister could have taken the views of the Scottish, the Welsh and the Northern Irish Governments seriously and reached an agreement before triggering article 50, as she promised. She did not, and she does not have—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but we cannot have side exchanges taking place while he should have the Floor. [Interruption.] Yes, I am perfectly capable of seeing from whence the disruption hailed, and I hope it will not persist. The hon. Gentleman concerned has important responsibilities in the Government Whips Office and is normally the embodiment of courtesy, to which I know he will now return.

Angus Robertson: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
We on the SNP Benches have become accustomed to the views of Conservative Members as being incapable of understanding that the people of Scotland voted to remain in the European Union. The Prime Minister promised—[Interruption.] Do hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies on the Conservative Benches understand that we have televisions in Scotland and that viewers in Scotland can see the discourtesy from hon. Members on those Benches? They do not like to hear it but listen they must.
The Prime Minister promised an agreement. There is no agreement. She has broken her word. As Scotland’s Members of Parliament, we have been sent here with a mandate to stand up for the people of Scotland. It is a mandate that the Prime Minister does not enjoy. Fifty-eight out of 59 MPs from Scotland voted against triggering article 50. The Scottish Parliament voted against the triggering of article 50. The Scottish Government were against the triggering of article 50 before an agreement. Yet what have this Government done? They have carried on blithely ignoring the views of people in Scotland and  its democratically elected representatives. Europe is watching the way that this Government treat parts of the United Kingdom that voted to remain with Europe.
The UK Government had a mandate to hold a Brexit referendum. We accept that, and we accept the leave result in the rest of the United Kingdom. In that context—[Interruption.] Again, Conservative Members do not seem to understand that the United Kingdom is a multinational state with four nations, two of which voted to stay and two of which voted to leave. All the rhetoric from the Government Benches does not paper over the gaping chasm showing that there is not unity in this so-called United Kingdom on this issue.
As democrats, we should all accept that the Scottish Government have a mandate, given by the people of Scotland in an election, whereby we should have a choice after the negotiations have concluded, and this should not be kicked into the long grass and that democratic choice denied. Yesterday the Scottish Parliament voted by 69 to 59 that people in Scotland should have that choice. Will the Prime Minister confirm that she will recognise the democratic right of the people to make their own choice after negotiations have concluded?
The Prime Minister says that she thinks that Brexit will bring unity to the United Kingdom. It will not. On this issue, it is not a United Kingdom, and the Prime Minster needs to respect—respect—the differences across the nations of the United Kingdom. If she does not—if she remains intransigent and if she denies Scotland a choice on our future—she will make Scottish independence inevitable. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Calm yourselves. Mr Docherty-Hughes, you are an exceptionally over-excitable individual brandishing your Order Paper in a distinctly eccentric manner. Go and entertain yourself somewhere else if you cannot calm yourself. The Prime Minister.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The right hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon on a number of occasions, as he has on many occasions in this House before, that Scotland voted to remain in the European Union and should therefore be treated differently. My constituency voted to remain in the European Union. [Interruption.] The point is that we are one United Kingdom, and it was a vote of the whole of the United Kingdom. What I hear from people outside this Chamber—by the way, the right hon. Gentleman seems to forget the something like 400,000 SNP supporters who voted to leave the European Union—from individuals and businesses alike, whether they voted to remain or to leave, is that the vote having been taken, the decision having been given to people of the United Kingdom, we should now respect that vote and get on with the job of delivering for everybody across the whole of the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Gentleman refers to the issue of Scottish independence and its impact on membership of the European Union. It is the case, and the European Union has reinforced the Barroso doctrine, that if Scotland were to—[Interruption.] SNP Members seem to find it amusing but, just to remind everybody, the Barroso doctrine is that if Scotland were to become independent from the United Kingdom—if it had voted for independence in 2014—it would cease to be a member  of the European Union. We will be ensuring that the substance of the deal that we achieve—I am interested in the outcomes of this deal—will be the best possible deal for the people of the whole United Kingdom.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about democratic representation and democratic responsibility. Perhaps the Scottish Government might like to consider why they have not passed a single piece of legislation in Holyrood for the past year.

John Redwood: I welcome warmly the Prime Minister’s words in her letter and her statement, and I especially welcome the suggestion that we want a special relationship with the EU based on friendship, trade and many other collaborations once we are an independent country again. Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK Government are offering tariff-free trade, with no new barriers, to all our partners in Europe, which must make enormous sense for them?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to see that tariff-free trade, on a reciprocal basis, with the other countries in the European Union. I think that that makes sense. We already operate on the same basis because we operate under the same rules and regulations, and I think we should look to have the maximum free trade between the two of us.

Tim Farron: I thank the Prime Minister for her statement and for advance sight of it. Today the Prime Minister is not enacting the will of the people; she is at best interpreting that will, and choosing a hard Brexit outside the single market that was never on the ballot paper. This day of all days, the Liberal Democrats will not roll over, as the official Opposition have done.
Our children and grandchildren will judge all of us for our actions during these times. I am determined to be able to look my children in the eye and say that I did everything to prevent this calamity that the Prime Minister has today chosen. We now face an unknown deal that will shape our country for generations. The deal will be signed off by someone, and the only question is: who? Will it be the politicians, or should it be the people? Surely the Prime Minister will agree with me that the people should have the final say.

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman talks about us enacting the decision of the referendum. Of course we are enacting the decision that was taken by the people of the United Kingdom in the referendum, but I might remind him that it was not that long ago that the Liberal Democrat party wanted a referendum on the European Union. We gave it to them, and we are abiding by it.

Anna Soubry: The Prime Minister has made it very clear that immigration is her No. 1 priority, and that as a result we cannot accept the free movement of people and therefore we cannot remain a member of the single market. But that may change in the next two years. Who knows what might happen? The EU may move away from that principle of the free movement of people. In view of that, could the Prime Minister give an assurance that she has not turned her back on membership of the single market? It is what  British business wants, it would see off Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP’s outrageous demands for a second referendum—[Interruption.] Wheesht awhile! These are serious matters that this United Kingdom faces, and that would provide the solution to Northern Ireland as we now leave the European Union.

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend started her question by saying that immigration was the No. 1 priority. What we have done is to say that we want a comprehensive package that, yes, does enable us to control immigration and set our own rules on immigration, but also has exactly the sort of free access to the single market that I think she is talking about and that businesses want to see. I believe that we can achieve that agreement. I believe we should be optimistic and ambitious in achieving that agreement.
There are other freedoms that the European leaders will cite in relation to full membership of the single market, such as the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and I think that people here voted to stop the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice last year. But what matters to me is the outcome—not the structure by which we achieve that outcome, but whether we have that free, frictionless, tariff-free access to the single market. That is what we want to achieve and what we will be working for.

Nigel Dodds: May I thank the Prime Minister for her statement, congratulate her and her Government on actually delivering on the will of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole instead of seeking to undermine it, and wish her and her Government well in the negotiations that lie ahead? We on this Bench are convinced that she is the right leader of our country for these challenging times. Is not the fundamental point that this United Kingdom—this Union—is far more important for the political and economic prosperity of all our people than the European Union? May I also commend her for putting in No. 5 of the principles set out in her letter, Northern Ireland and the relationship with the Irish Republic? I commend her for the way in which that has been put forward, and she will have our support in the coming months and years in this House to make that a reality.

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. We have, as he said, recognised the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland—and its relationship, because of the land border, with the Republic of Ireland—in the letter to President Tusk. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that the most important Union for the United Kingdom, economically and in other ways, is the United Kingdom. For its individual constituent parts, trading within the single market of the United Kingdom is far more important than trading with the European Union.

Crispin Blunt: I commend my right hon. Friend for the constructive, positive and realistic tone she has set today with her statement and the letter to Donald Tusk. I also congratulate her and her Government on the use of the last nine months to prepare us for this point, making up for the lack of preparation for this moment by the last Administration. May I urge on her the preparation that is implicit in this  letter, to ensure that if it is impossible to get a deal home—although that will be coped with by the United Kingdom and the European Union, as it must be—we are in a position to cope with that?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend. We are trying to approach this in a realistic and pragmatic way, as he says. Of course, the Government will be working across all Departments to ensure that we have preparations in place, whatever the outcome will be. As I made clear in my letter to President Tusk, while both the European Union and the UK could cope if there was no agreement, that would not be the ideal situation. It is not what we will be working for, and we should be actively working to get the right and proper deal for both sides.

Ed Miliband: The Prime Minister is right to say in her statement that the eventual deal must work for the 48% as well as the 52%, because whether we were remainers or leavers, we will live in the same country together after Brexit. May I emphasise to her that national unity must be earned and not just asserted, and it must be shown in deeds and not just in words? We are a long, long way away from it, as I think she will agree. As she reflects on the last eight months, can she say what she thinks she needs to do differently in the next 24 months to achieve that national unity, which, frankly, eludes us at the moment?

Theresa May: There are two things that we will be doing over the next 24 months, as a Government. One is putting in place our plan for Britain, which is about ensuring that we see a United Kingdom where the economy works for everyone, where we have a much fairer society and where success is based on merit, not privilege. That is what is driving this Government, and that is what we will be putting into place domestically. For the unity of the UK, the most important element in the negotiations with Europe is to get the best possible deal in terms of co-operation on security, but also on the free trade arrangements that will bring prosperity to our economy.

Owen Paterson: May I thank my right hon. Friend for and congratulate her on resolutely sticking to her promise to the British people to trigger article 50 before the end of March? There will be celebrations all around the country, nowhere more so than in our remote coastal communities, where the health and wealth of our fishing grounds has been trashed by the common fisheries policy. To re-establish fully our national control of the full exclusive economic zone, we will have to abrogate our membership of the 1964 London convention on fisheries, which requires two years’ notice. Does my right hon. Friend intend to trigger that soon?

Theresa May: I know that my right hon. Friend has always had a particular interest in the impact of the common fisheries policy, and he has looked at that issue very carefully. We are looking very carefully at the London fisheries convention and at what action needs to be taken. He is right that this would require two years, but we of course expect to conclude the deal with the European Union within two years and there will then, as I have indicated, be an implementation period beyond that particular time. We hope to be able to say something about the London fisheries convention soon.

Margaret Beckett: There are many across this House who will be very aware of the sheer scale and complexity of the negotiations that will face our team, and very conscious of the importance of getting those right. It has never been more true that the devil will be in the detail. As the detail emerges, will the Prime Minister ensure that everyone in her team stops the practice that has been so prevalent of claiming that every awkward question is evidence of a desire to overturn the will of the British people, because nothing will more surely destroy the unity of purpose that she seeks?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that these will be very complex negotiations. It was right to wait the nine months we did before invoking article 50, so we have been able to do a considerable amount of preparation. As we move forward, some very technical discussions will of course need to take place, as well as the higher level discussions that will need to take place. I assure the right hon. Lady that we consistently ask ourselves difficult questions to ensure that we are testing every approach that we put forward, so that we can get the best possible deal.

Michael Fabricant: First, may I reassure my right hon. Friend that Donald Tusk has indeed received the letter? He tweeted about it one minute early—at 12.29 pm our time—which shows the keenness of our team. May I also tell the Prime Minister that Donald Tusk has said he is missing us already, but that he recognises it is in the European Union’s interest, as well as that of the United Kingdom, that we achieve an agreement that will benefit both sides in this negotiation?

Theresa May: This is absolutely right, and I am pleased to hear that President Tusk has taken that view. This is not just about the United Kingdom for the future, but about the European Union for the future and the relationship we will have with it. As I have said in the letter, we want a “deep and special partnership” to continue in the future. We are still part of Europe, although we will be leaving the EU institutions.

Douglas Carswell: The Prime Minister has the good will of the country as she seeks a new relationship with our European allies. Will she confirm that in transposing EU directives and regulations into UK law, we do not transpose all the rulings of the ECJ? Will she ensure that, for example, the EU charter of fundamental rights is not imposed, given that we have long-standing assurances that it will not have legal force in this country?

Theresa May: I say to the hon. Gentleman that we will be publishing a White Paper on the great repeal Bill tomorrow, which will make it clearer how we are going to transpose not just the acquis, but relevant judgments of the European Court of Justice. I am very well aware of this and this Government have taken the very clear position that we do not think the European charter of fundamental human rights is applicable.

Nicky Morgan: In her letter to President Tusk, the Prime Minister, as she did in January, said:
“We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe”.
She will know that 16.1 million people voted to do neither last June, but the result is as it is and needs to be honoured. Will my right hon. Friend say how she will keep this Parliament fully engaged throughout the process, and will she do her utmost to secure a trade deal that we can all support rather than listen to the siren voices that seem to think no deal is a good option?

Theresa May: I am very happy to give my right hon. Friend that assurance. I want to secure a really good trade deal with the European Union for the United Kingdom. I also want us to be able to secure trade deals with countries around the rest of the world, but we want to ensure—we start off from a good position, because we are of course operating under the same rules and regulations as the European Union—that we get a really good trade deal with the EU.
There will be significant opportunities for this House and this Parliament to consider the issues as we go through the next two years. Of course, the great repeal Bill itself will be a matter for debate and consideration in this House. There will also be some subsequent pieces of legislation that are required as a result of the decision to leave the European Union which will come before this House. We will make every effort to keep this House informed as we go through that. I have always said that we will be clear and will provide clarity where we are able to do so.

Hilary Benn: The Prime Minister will no doubt recall the referendum speech she made last April, in which she said that
“the big question is whether, in the event of Brexit, we would be able to negotiate a new free trade agreement with the EU and on what terms.”
Given that the European Union appears to want to start the negotiations by talking only about money and that there are about 18 months to go, how will the Prime Minister ensure there is sufficient time to reach the agreement to provide tariff and barrier-free trade and access to the European market for our services that she has promised Britain’s businesses she will bring back from the negotiations?

Theresa May: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, we do not yet know how the European Council will choose to frame the negotiations; it will meet on 29 April to determine that. There will be two parts, if you like, to the work going forward: one is the process of withdrawal and the terms of withdrawal; and the other is what the future relationship will be. It is clear in article 50 that the former should be done in the context of the latter, so it is not just reasonable but entirely right and proper that we look at those two issues alongside each other.
As I have said in answer to other questions, the point about a comprehensive free trade agreement is that we will not be operating as a third party, such as Canada, for example, when it started its negotiations with the European Union. We are already operating on the same basis—we already have free trade between the European Union and the United Kingdom—and I believe that sets us on a better basis on which to start the negotiations, and that it will be possible to get a comprehensive free trade agreement.

John Baron: I commend the Prime Minister for her handling of triggering article 50, and indeed for respecting the wishes of the British electorate in the referendum. May I suggest that there is another reason to make sure that guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals—both those living here and those on the continent—should be a very high priority? Not only is it the right thing to do and will establish good intent, but should there be no agreement, it would be clear to the world that that was not actually our fault and that we were not using EU nationals as bargaining chips.

Theresa May: I am very clear in the letter that I have sent to President Tusk that we intend the work on the rights of EU nationals and UK nationals living in the EU to be undertaken as part of the negotiations at an early stage. As I have said before, I genuinely believe there is good will to do that, and I hope we will be able to achieve that at an early stage of the negotiations and give EU citizens living here and UK citizens living in the European Union reassurance about their future.

Yvette Cooper: The last Prime Minister did not want this day to come, although it followed from many of the decisions he took over many years, and he will be remembered as the Prime Minister who unintentionally led Britain out of Europe. I know this Prime Minister does not want to see the break-up of the United Kingdom, but she will also know that holding us together requires more than just the rhetoric of unity. Will she therefore say what she will do in both the content and the style of her negotiations not to fuel further division and not to play into the hands of others, but to ensure voices from all over the country are genuinely heard in this debate so that she does not become the Prime Minister who unintentionally leads the break-up of Britain?

Theresa May: First, I say to the right hon. Lady that she referred to the decision on the referendum as one of leaving Europe, but it is about leaving the European Union, not leaving Europe. We want a deep and special partnership with the European Union. We will obviously continue to be part of Europe, and we will want to continue to work with our friends and allies in Europe.
As we go ahead, we will continue to undertake discussions not just with the devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom, but with businesses and other organisations across the United Kingdom—Government Departments are speaking with their interlocutors in a whole range of sectors—to ensure that all views and all considerations are taken into account as we go forward in the negotiations. We want to make sure that we fully understand the concerns and interests that people have, and that is why we have already started talking widely with not just the devolved Administrations, but others across the United Kingdom to ensure that we collect those views and take them into account.

Cheryl Gillan: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her resolve in carrying forward the democratic outcome of the referendum? No matter what the differences are across this House, I can assure her that every single Member of this House wishes her well for the negotiations ahead. Can she confirm that, no matter how those negotiations  progress over the coming months and years, the United Kingdom will continue to prioritise co-operation and the exchange of information with the other European countries, to ensure that our internal and external security is not compromised in any way whatsoever?

Theresa May: I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that assurance. Our co-operation on security and justice and home affairs matters is very important to us and to the member states of the European Union. Obviously, it is something that I worked closely on when I was Home Secretary. I assure her that we will be looking to ensure that that co-operation can continue. As we look at the challenges that we face across the globe, now is not the time for less co-operation; now is the time to ensure that we continue to co-operate and, indeed, build on that.

Alasdair McDonnell: May I remind the Prime Minister that Northern Ireland voted 56% remain? Indeed, my own constituency voted almost 70% to remain. With respect, may I warn her about the Trojan horse being pushed out to her in the form of honey words from Members on the Bench behind me? The Prime Minister says that the interests of all nations and regions of the UK will be taken into account in the negotiations. What measures has she been able to, or does she intend to, put in place to ensure that Northern Ireland’s views, needs and special circumstances are taken into account in the negotiations?

Theresa May: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The point he made about the vote in Northern Ireland is one that I attempted to show earlier, which is that different parts of the United Kingdom voted in different ways: some voted to leave, some voted to remain. The overall result of the referendum of the United Kingdom was that we should leave the European Union, and that is what we will be doing. Obviously, we maintained contact with the Northern Ireland Executive up to the point at which they ceased to exist when the election was taking place. We have continued, however, to talk about the issue to political parties in Northern Ireland. The best result to ensure that the voice of the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland can be heard in these negotiations is for the parties to come together and for us to see that strong and devolved Government, who will provide us with that interlocutor.

Steven Baker: Since the vote, the economic news has confounded expectations. Economists for Free Trade have told us how WTO rules with the right policies can cut consumer prices and raise GDP, and the Legatum Institute special trade commissioners have given us every reason to believe that we will not only secure the right trade deal for us, but liberate trade right around the world. Does the Prime Minister agree that the time for “Project Fear” is over?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right. Obviously, there were predictions about what would happen to the economy if the United Kingdom voted to leave. Those predictions have not proved to be correct and we see a strong economy. Of course, as we go forward we want to build on that. We want to ensure that we get those comprehensive trade agreements. I believe that a comprehensive free trade agreement with the European  Union should be our aim. That is what we will be working for, but we will also be looking to promote trade around the rest of the world. As my hon. Friend has said, it is in the interests of everybody—not just the UK or the EU, but countries around the world—that we stand up for the benefits of free trade and promote free trade around the world.

Rosie Winterton: As has been said, the Prime Minister referred in her statement to
“taking due account of the specific interests of every nation and region of the UK”,
but leading councils in Yorkshire have had no contact whatsoever from the Government. Will she please now work with local government and local enterprise boards in all English regions to analyse the effect of Brexit on jobs, trade and investment, so that negotiations can achieve, as was promised by the Secretary of State for Brexit, not just an aspiration, but the “exact same benefits” as we have from membership of the single market and the customs union? The Prime Minister sidestepped the question from the Leader of the Opposition, so may I ask it again? Does she believe that the English regions can get the exact same benefits as before?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady has asked a number of questions. I am very clear that we want to ensure that we get that comprehensive free trade agreement that gives our businesses the benefits that they have had as members of the European Union. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is talking to local mayors and local authorities. The right hon. Lady mentioned local enterprise partnerships. As it happens, I had a roundtable with representative chairmen of LEPs on Tuesday in Birmingham and talked to them about the future, so we are listening to those voices from across the regions.

Alistair Burt: Like millions of others in the United Kingdom, I am proud of the European Union and the contribution that the UK has made to it during my political lifetime, and I am a little sad about today. However, I stand unequivocally with the Prime Minister as she calls for a united approach to a new future. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that in order to make that national endeavour meaningful, her door and those of her Ministers should always be open to all parties in the House, from all sides of the discussion, because a new script for the relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom should be written as much by those who value the EU as by those who campaigned to leave it?

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. As I said in my statement earlier, there will be those in this House who are celebrating and those who are sad and disappointed at the decision that has been taken. I reassure him that as we move forward and ensure that we get the best possible arrangements for the future, I want to listen, and Ministers want to listen, to all voices in this House, including those who were ardent on both sides of the campaign. As I have just indicated, we are also, of course, listening to all parts of the United Kingdom.

Alex Salmond: Today is the day that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead has become the first Prime Minister in recent history to have to be reminded that Scotland is a country, not a constituency of England. She refused to reply to the question whether there had been an economic assessment of the impact of leaving the EU with no deal. Has there been such an assessment? Will she publish it? And if there has not been an assessment, how does the Foreign Secretary know that it is “perfectly okay”?

Theresa May: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am well aware that Scotland is a constituent nation of the United Kingdom. The point is a very simple one and it was made from the Bench behind him earlier, which is that different parts of the United Kingdom voted in different ways. Different constituencies voted in different ways. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland voted in different ways—Wales voted to leave; Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain—but the overall response of the United Kingdom was a vote to leave the European Union, and that is what we are putting into place. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are looking at the arrangements that need to be put in place, whatever the impact—whatever the decision that is taken at the end. But crucially, what I am very clear about—I was clear in my letter to President Tusk—is that we should work to get that comprehensive free trade agreement, so that we are not in the position of having no deal but that we have a deal that is to the benefit of everybody in the UK, including the people of Scotland.

George Freeman: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the cool, constructive clarity and conviction that she has brought to this momentous period in British politics, and on her commitment today to negotiate on behalf of everyone in this country—the 48% as well as the 52%? Does she agree that we must also redouble our commitment to domestic reform—that compassionate Conservative programme—which is so key to industry and to skills and infrastructure, both for our post-Brexit economic prosperity and for the unity we will need to succeed? She wrote in her excellent letter to Mr Tusk:
“The task before us is momentous but it should not be beyond us.”
Does she agree that that applies to Members of this House as well, and that we should reject the shrill voices of Scottish and English nationalism so that we pull together, not pull apart?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The question people responded to in the referendum was about leaving the European Union, but I believe the vote to leave was also a vote for wider change in this country. That is why it is so important that we put forward and deliver our plan for Britain, for a stronger, fairer society for all—a country that really does work for everyone. It is important that right now we pull together and recognise that the task ahead is to ensure we get the right result for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Caroline Flint: Regardless of how people voted in the referendum, I suspect there is an even bigger majority today for all of us to get on with trying to get the best deal we possibly can. Many  businesses are worried. With the triggering of article 50, they feel the clock is ticking and that everything might need to be resolved within two years. Can the Prime Minister reassure businesses? At the end of the two years, what we have will be pretty much the headlines. There will have to be transitional arrangements to ensure that we explore the devil in the detail. This House must be able to discuss it, but more importantly we must get it right for businesses and for the rest of Britain.

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady is right. Businesses want the certainty of knowing where they will stand so they can plan for the future. Two things are important. It is important that we bring the acquis into UK law through the great repeal Bill, so that on the day we leave everybody knows those rules still apply and everybody knows where they stand. It is also right that it is a tight timetable to get agreement on our future relationship. There will need to be an implementation period to ensure that that is put into practice in a way that makes practical sense for businesses and Governments.

Julian Lewis: Will the Prime Minister reaffirm that the defence of Europe depends not on the EU but on the deterrent effect of article 5 of the NATO treaty, which means that an attack on any European NATO member will involve the United States in its defence from the first hour of the first day? In the spirit of unity, will she join me in congratulating two statesmen on opposite sides of the Brexit debate, Sir John Major and Lord Tebbit of Chingford? They may not share the same views on Europe, but they do share the same birthday today.

Theresa May: I am very happy to wish a happy birthday to members of the Conservative party.
My right hon. Friend raises the important issue of NATO. As I indicated in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), NATO is the bedrock of our security and our defence. Article 5 lies at the heart of that security and defence. We will continue to contribute to NATO in the way we have in the past, and we will continue to encourage others to ensure that NATO is able to provide that security in the future, as it has in the past.

Pat McFadden: I remind the Prime Minister that defence is about more than weapons; it is about values and collective solidarity.
There are two kinds of future stemming from the process triggered today. The first is that we spend two years desperately trying to secure, in the Secretary of State’s words,
“the exact same benefits as we have”,—[Official Report, 24 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 169.]
while gaining control of immigration, which, as Ministers have suggested, may make little difference to the numbers. In which case, people will ask, “What is the point?” Or there is another future where we crash without an agreement, defaulting to WTO rules with all that would mean for industry, agriculture and services. In which case, people will ask, “What is the price?” So which future does she think is the more likely: “what is the point” or “what is the price”?

Theresa May: I have to say that I think the right hon. Gentleman is framing the question in the wrong way. People voted to leave the European Union, but I believe that we as a country still want to have a good trading relationship with it. People overwhelmingly voted to know that the UK Government are in control of key decisions previously taken by the EU institutions: immigration rules, spending our budget and the relationship of the UK courts to decisions taken here in this Parliament. Underlying the vote was our ability to set our own laws and for those laws to be determined by our courts. This was not just a question of money. It was about values. It was about the value of that self-determination.

Claire Perry: May I join others in commending the Prime Minister for a clear, concise and very generous approach to the negotiations, both in her statement today and in her letter to President Tusk?
The Prime Minister will know that the reason we currently have a strong economy is partly due to the decisions taken by the previous Government and partly because nothing has actually changed economically, other than the sharp depreciation in our currency. As we go into a period of enhanced risk and uncertainty for our country and businesses, a process I think she will lead us through admirably, does she not agree that it is time to start talking facts and sense to the British people, rather than rhetoric and ideology, and in particular reject the idea that no deal and a reliance on WTO rules would somehow be okay? I am sure she will have seen recent research from the National Institute Of Economic and Social Research, which suggests that a WTO deal, despite all the trade deals we want to sign with China, Brazil, India and America, would represent a loss of trade of a quarter—a quarter—to the British economy. We cannot do that to this country. I hope she will tell us that we are not going to do that to our country. Can we start talking in facts and perhaps trust experts a little bit more?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservative-led Government’s long-term economic plan, on which we all stood at the last election, has enabled our economy to have the necessary strength. We are pleased that we are able to maintain and build on that strength in our economy. She talks about the WTO arrangements. What I say in the letter to President Tusk is very clear:
“If…we leave the European Union without an agreement the default position is that we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms.”
In that kind of scenario, both the UK and the EU would of course cope with the change, but it is not the outcome that either side should seek. We must therefore work hard to avoid that outcome. I am clear that we want a comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union, and that is what we will be working for.

Kate Hoey: On what is a genuinely historic day for our country, may I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and to the Brexit Ministers for their determination and dedication in getting to this stage today to implement the will of the British people? Does she agree that one area on which we should be able to move forward very quickly in negotiations is getting back control of our fishing grounds?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, mentioned the London fisheries convention. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is looking at this issue and we hope to be able to say something soon. As we look at the whole raft of negotiations, we will be looking at policies that affect not just trade in goods and services, but agriculture and fisheries here in the United Kingdom, and security and crime. We will be looking particularly at the London fisheries convention in due course.

Neil Carmichael: The Prime Minister’s letter to President Tusk is not one I ever hoped to read, but having done so I welcome the eight principles. Does the Prime Minister agree that to bring them to fruition it would be very helpful to include all of us in this process, because even the most ardent pro-European is also incredibly ambitious for this country?

Theresa May: I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. What I hope we will see, and what I think he has indicated we will see, is people on both sides of the argument coming together with that ambition for the future. It is important that we take all views into account as we develop that.

Ben Bradshaw: In her letter and again in her statement today, the Prime Minister has made it clear that she believes it will be necessary to agree the terms of the divorce alongside the details of our future relationship with the European Union. If the other 27 come back in their reply and say that they want to agree the terms of the divorce first, including the issues of citizenship rights, our liabilities and borders, particularly with Northern Ireland, how will she respond?

Theresa May: We will go into a negotiation with the European Union about the best way to take these issues forward. I have been putting forward the case, as have other Ministers, that it makes sense from a pragmatic point of view to ensure that at the end of the two years, we have both of these decisions concluded, namely the withdrawal process and the future relationship. That is because I do not think it is in anybody’s interest for the UK to agree withdrawal, withdraw and go on to one set of arrangements, subsequently having to negotiate another set of arrangements that come into place at a later date. It makes much better sense—for individuals, for businesses and indeed for Governments—to conclude those two parts of the negotiation at the same time.

Peter Bone: Some Government Members and some Opposition Members have worked throughout their political career to extract the United Kingdom from the European superstate. Sometimes we were isolated, sometimes we were ignored, and sometimes we were insulted, but thanks to the British people, today we are leaving the European Union. In the past, when there has been a major change in our relationship with Europe, it has happened through conflict, bloodshed and turmoil. Does the Prime Minister agree that the whole country can celebrate the fact that this change is happening peacefully and democratically?

Theresa May: I am happy to endorse that, because it is a tribute to the way in which we in the UK have approached the issue and indeed to the way in which our European partners have been willing to approach it. I think we will be willing to approach it in that way in the future. The eyes of the world will be on us as we go through this negotiation to see precisely how we conduct it. I want it to be conducted positively, constructively and respectfully.

Joanna Cherry: After the Brexit deal has been negotiated, the European Parliament and every other member state in the European Union will have a say on whether to accept that deal. Can the Prime Minister not see that to deny the people of Scotland a say at the same time would show utter contempt for democracy in Scotland?

Theresa May: We have been very clear that there will be a vote in this Parliament when we come back with a deal from the European Union. It will take place in both Houses and it will happen before the deal comes into force. We expect that to be undertaken before the European Parliament has had an opportunity to debate and vote on this issue. Within this House, of course, there are representatives from all parts of the United Kingdom.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of Francis Drake:
“There must be a begynnyng of any great matter, but the contenewing unto the end untyll it be thoroughly ffynyshed yeldes the trew glory”?
I wish my right hon. Friend good luck and good fortune in her negotiations until she comes to true glory and is welcomed back to this House as a 21st century Gloriana.

Theresa May: I think my answer to that is that I thank my hon. Friend!

Liz Kendall: Will the Prime Minister clear up some confusion on her own side about immigration policy? The Times reports that the International Trade Secretary is now arguing for more immigration from countries that are outside the EU in return for striking new trade deals. Does the Prime Minister agree?

Theresa May: The Government have a clear position on our work to reduce net migration into this country. Leaving the European Union will enable us to introduce rules in respect of those who are moving from the EU member states into the United Kingdom, but we continue to ensure that we are bearing down on abuse in our immigration system and that we have the rules that we believe are right so that we can continue to bring the brightest and the best here to the UK.

Tania Mathias: I thank the Prime Minister for her statement and for being very clear that we are not leaving Europe and that we seek to guarantee the rights of EU citizens in our country. When she says “as early as we can”, does she agree with me as a fellow European that “as early as we can” means today?

Theresa May: In the negotiations, I want reciprocal rights for EU citizens and UK citizens. It is not just about what time we say should be allotted for that discussion; it will be for the remaining 27 member states of the EU to negotiate with us on that. We need reciprocity, but I believe that there is good will, so I am hopeful that we will be able to start this discussion at an early stage of negotiations.

David Winnick: Given the reference of some Members to the British people, is it not important to recognise that a large majority of this country’s people are not fanatically for or against the UK being in the European Union? If we want to bring the people together, as the Prime Minister says she does, that should very much be borne in mind. If, during the negotiations undertaken by her predecessor, we had seen some flexibility from the European Union over the free movement of labour, is it not quite likely that we would not be debating this issue now?

Theresa May: David Cameron put an enormous effort, as did others across Government, into the negotiations leading to the deal that he brought to the British people. The hon. Gentleman’s assumption is that the only issue on which people voted was free movement, but I do not think that is right. I think that wanting control over our borders was one key issue, but it was also about more than that, including control of our laws, control of our money and self-determination. That is what was driving the decision.

Seema Kennedy: Many vegetable growers in South Ribble rely on migrant labour and easy access to European markets for their exports. Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that British farming will be a priority in her and her team’s negotiations?

Theresa May: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working very closely with farming communities across the whole of the United Kingdom in looking at their interests for the future and the arrangements that will be put in place once we leave the common agricultural policy.

Kelvin Hopkins: I welcome the triggering of article 50, because it will make possible the democratic socialist future that I and many others have struggled for all their lives. The Prime Minister will be aware that we have a trade deficit with the EU of over £60 billion a year and another deficit of about £20 billion a year on investments, income and remittances, and that we are paying more than £10 billion a year in our contribution to the EU budget. That is total of £90 billion—a huge sum that amounts roughly to about £6,000 a year for a family of four. Does that not put Britain in a very strong position in the negotiations, specifically about trade?

Theresa May: I think we are in a good position on the trade negotiations, because companies in other EU member states can see the benefits of trade with the United Kingdom. I believe that there will be real benefit to both sides as we negotiate a good trade deal for both of us.

Rebecca Pow: I wholeheartedly welcome the Prime Minister’s message of looking forward with optimism and hope. Without that sort of viewpoint, I for one would never have made it to this place. Today, my heart is tinged with a little sadness, but we must always aim for better, which is why I wholeheartedly welcome the tone and spirit of the Prime Minister’s words. With that in mind, does she agree that it is crucial for all sectors to be treated fairly in the future negotiations and that in the south-west, our biggest sector of food, farming and agriculture must not be sold or traded at the expense of other sectors?

Theresa May: As I have said, we are working hard in all Departments to ensure that the interests of different parts of the United Kingdom are taken into account. We recognise that the value of certain sectors and jobs varies, and that there are parts of the United Kingdom—for instance, as my hon. Friend says, the south-west—where food and farming are a particularly important element. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will be seeking a comprehensive package that will provide a good deal for everyone in the United Kingdom.

Stephen Kinnock: In her letter to Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister says:
“If…we leave the European Union without an agreement…we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened.”
Is she really saying that the security of our country will be traded like a bargaining chip in these negotiations?

Theresa May: We will not be trading the security of our country, but we have a relationship with the European Union. There are certain elements of the European Union, in justice and home affairs, of which we are currently members and of which, on leaving the European Union, we would not be members. We need to negotiate what our future relationship will be. It is very simple and very pragmatic: the aim will be to ensure co-operation on these matters.

Bob Neill: I welcome the Prime Minister’s repeated use of the word “pragmatic” in her responses. Many of us believe that this country is at its very best when we are pragmatic, rather than ideological. The Prime Minister mentioned the importance of co-operation on justice and home affairs. Does she accept that co-operation on other aspects of judicial and legal services will also be crucial in underpinning her prioritisation of our financial services sector, which is so critical to any negotiation?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The strength of our legal services, and the co-operation that we have on justice and legal matters, are also an important part of the relationship that we have. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has been working with the judiciary to examine exactly those issues and consider how we can proceed with them to ensure the right level of co-operation in the future.

Hywel Williams: I thank the Prime Minister for giving me advance sight of her statement. She referred to “the British spirit” and to a “fairer”, “united” Britain, but fairness is a proper respect for all  views from all parts of the islands, not just, as she put it, “taking account of the specific interests” of nations and regions beforehand, and not just consulting about which repatriated powers should stay in Westminster and which should be dribbled down while she drives through her extreme version of Brexit. As we leave the European Union, there must be a better way than just her way.

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman referred to my vision for Brexit. As I have made very clear, in the House this afternoon and elsewhere, we want that comprehensive free trade agreement, we want good security co-operation, and we want good security on justice and home affairs matters. That is what is in the letter to President Tusk. I do not consider it to be an extreme view of Brexit; I consider it to be a good deal for the United Kingdom.

Craig Mackinlay: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the very reasonable underlying tone of her letter to President Tusk. As she will know, this is a day for which I have campaigned for some 26 years. Does she agree that the dividends of the restoration of democracy to our institutions, the ending of huge fiscal transfers to the European Union and the potential for international new trade deals are prizes from which everyone in our country will benefit in years to come?

Theresa May: As I said earlier, I know that there are Members on both sides of the House who have campaigned for this for a very long time. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that what underlay the vote for people was that sense of the need for the United Kingdom to be able to have control of its budget, control of its laws and control of its immigration rules, and not simply be subject to decisions made in Brussels.

Ann Clwyd: I am proud to have been a Member of the European Parliament—I was one of the first to be elected, in 1979, along with Boris’s father, who I do not think shares Boris’s views any longer. The Prime Minister has reflected today on the role of the European Parliament. I am sure she will agree that while it is one of three important institutions with which negotiations will take place, at the end of the day it has the power of veto, and that is a very important power. If the European Parliament were to invite her—as it does invite Heads of State and Prime Ministers—to appear before it, give her views and answer some questions, would she agree to do so?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady is right to say that the European Parliament will play an important role in the process. Obviously, the structure of the negotiations that has been established means that the key negotiator will be the European Commission, operating under the mandate of the European Council, but arrangements are made for interaction with the European Parliament as part of that as well. I know that Heads of Government are, from time to time, invited to address the European Parliament, and were I to receive such an invitation, I would of course consider it very seriously.

Jason McCartney: This is indeed a momentous day. On behalf of the whole House, may I pass on our congratulations to our hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) on the birth of a baby boy this morning, Clifford George?
The Prime Minister has spoken of more decision-making powers for the devolved Assemblies. With that in mind, does she agree that now is the time to turbo-charge devolved powers to Yorkshire and the north, and to give real backing to the northern powerhouse?

Theresa May: rose—

John Bercow: Order. In congratulating the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) on the excellent news to which the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) has just referred, I think it right also to congratulate the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), who I think had some hand in the matter as well. [Laughter.] Well, he had a role, anyway.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am glad that I did not have to give clarification of your statement. I congratulate both my hon. Friends on the birth of Clifford George this morning, and I am sure that the whole House will send its best wishes to mother and father, and to their baby son.
As others have said in the House, it is important for us to take into account the views of the various parts and regions of the United Kingdom. We have some very important deals, including a number of city deals, around the country, and the devolution deals. The directly elected Mayors will be in place on 4 May. We will also, of course, look into how we can further boost the economies throughout the United Kingdom, including the northern powerhouse and the midlands engine. I was in Birmingham yesterday to discuss exactly that issue.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I heard the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell) earlier from his seat, and I think that it is now time to hear him from his feet.

Phil Boswell: Having recently come from a Public Accounts Committee sitting on care for people with learning disabilities, may I ask whether the Prime Minister can tell us when the national health service will start receiving its extra £350 million a week?

Theresa May: I am pleased to say that we are putting record levels of funding into the national health service, and—as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement—putting extra funding into social care. Decisions on how we spend our budget in the future, once we have completed the negotiations and left the European Union, will be decisions to be made here in the United Kingdom.

Alberto Costa: In less than half an hour, the Italian Foreign Secretary will visit Parliament to sign the book of condolence and lay some flowers on behalf of the Republic of Italy. May I warmly commend some words in the Prime Minister’s statement? It was the first time that she had said this to the House: “I will represent every person in the United Kingdom…and, yes, those EU nationals who have made this country their home.” That includes my parents, my sister, some of my constituents, and 3 million other European Union nationals. I thank the Prime Minister  for using those warm words. Today marks a coming of age for her: she is showing the House and the country that she is the right leader at this momentous time for the country.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He has, of course, taken a particular interest in the position of EU citizens living here in the United Kingdom. I am pleased to confirm that, as I negotiate, I will be negotiating for everyone in the United Kingdom, including those EU citizens. As I have repeated in the letter to President Tusk, I hope and expect that we shall be able to look at the issue of the rights of EU citizens living here—and UK citizens living in the EU—at an early stage of the negotiations.

Barry Sheerman: May I remind the Prime Minister that, at one stage, both she and I were remainers? I remain very much a remainer; I am a passionate European, and I believe that she should take careful note of the fact that a large number of people in this country valued European citizenship. They did so because it delivered over many years peace, prosperity and security. Will she assure this House that those priorities will be maintained in all the negotiations going forward?

Theresa May: I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that it is, of course, possible to be a passionate European without believing that the UK should be a member of the European Union. This is a difference in terms of the values that we share. Working together co-operatively, across Europe, on the issues that he raises is important. Of course, I do believe, as those on the Conservative Benches do, that the key determinant of security and defence across Europe has been NATO. We continue to play our part in NATO, but I recognise that there are those on the continent of Europe who very much feel that for them, the EU has been part of that process of delivering security and peace into the future. I want to ensure that we can continue to work together, so that we continue to see peace and security across our European continent.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I call the fellow wearing the Elgar tie: Sir Gerald Howarth.

Gerald Howarth: Although the Prime Minister did indeed support the remain side during the referendum campaign last year, she has demonstrated outstanding leadership of our country in implementing the will of the British people. So on this historic day, and recalling, of course, Sir Edward Elgar, and having campaigned myself in 1975 to leave the Common Market, may I salute the Prime Minister for her determination to unite the country in securing the very best deal not only for the United Kingdom, but for our European partners as well?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I know that he has been campaigning long and hard on this issue over the years, and it is right that we should come together now and get that best possible deal for the UK.

Seema Malhotra: I also want to put on record how proud I am of what we have achieved as members of the EU, not just for our security and the economy, but also as regards peace between our nations, which twice in the last century have been at war. We know that there is more than one way to Brexit, and over the next two years there will clearly be a big debate about the trade-offs we will need to make. We also know that the Prime Minister wishes to ensure the future prosperity of Britain. So far, however, there has been no economic assessment of the Government’s plans. Will the Prime Minister confirm that an economic assessment will be published with the final deal, and that it will compare the expected outcome both to what we have now, and to the prospect if there is no deal?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady asked me to make a comparison with what we have now. Of course, we have decided to leave the EU and therefore to change our relationship with it, but we will make sure that Members have the necessary information when we come to the vote in Parliament on the deal we are putting forward.

Ben Howlett: This is a day that neither I nor the vast majority of my constituents wanted to see. However, may I commend the Prime Minister on her statement and her tone in the letter to President Tusk? I fully support the Prime Minister’s objective of delivering a comprehensive free trade deal with the EU on goods and services—and let us be clear that no deal would be a bad deal—but what more can this House do to help her deliver her aims, in the interests of both Britain and the EU?

Theresa May: The task that this House will have of putting through the great repeal Bill and other necessary legislation will, of course, be an important part of the process of delivering on the deal that we need at the end of this negotiation that we are entering into. I have every confidence that Members from all parts of the House, of all views and from all sides of the argument in the past, will come together and ensure that we work together to get the best possible deal.

Angus MacNeil: With us having a maximum of 72 weeks in which to negotiate a UK-EU trade deal, the future for Scotland is very clear: independence in Europe, or go it alone with Westminster. Have the Government thought of rejoining the European Free Trade Association, or will the Prime Minister totally go it alone and be in absolutely no regional trade agreement at all—a situation shared only by East Timor, Somalia, South Sudan, Mauritania and São Tomé and Príncipe in the gulf of Guinea—because that is where she is taking the United Kingdom?

Theresa May: I have said right from the beginning that, given the position of the United Kingdom, we want to negotiate a deal that is right for the United Kingdom. That means not taking off the shelf an arrangement that other countries have, but asking what works for the UK and the EU, given the relationship we have had, given that we have been members of the EU, given the size of our economy, and given the benefits to us and the EU of getting such a comprehensive free trade deal.

Antoinette Sandbach: I warmly welcome the tone of the Prime Minister’s letter to President Tusk, and wish her every success in achieving free and frictionless trade, but when it comes to returning sovereignty to this Parliament, will she undertake to this Parliament that she will limit any Henry VIII powers and allow MPs to vote on legislation that will affect the future of their constituents?

Theresa May: We will try to ensure that we have the best possible way of putting legislation through this House to enable necessary debate and discussion to take place. Obviously, as we come to the debates on the great repeal Bill, that will be part of the discussions, but I also ask hon. Members to recognise the very many changes that will need to take place that are very technical, and that are not about policy but are necessary, because of the intertwining of our legislation over the years, if we are to ensure that when we reach the point of leaving, we can have that clean break and have dealt with all the legislative consequences.

Gareth Snell: I am sure that when the Prime Minister went to the polling station on 23 June last year and cast her vote for remain, at the forefront of her mind was stability for British industry, and in the recent by-election in my constituency, the Prime Minister wrote to thousands of my constituents highlighting the plan she said her party would have for the ceramic industry. The ceramic manufacturers of Stoke-on-Trent make the best pottery in the world, but what they now need is stability and confidence, so that they can reach their growth targets and create jobs. Can the Prime Minister confirm, here and now, that our future relationship with the single market and the customs union will deliver exactly the same benefits as it currently does, so that when I return to Stoke-on-Trent this weekend I can give my major employers the confidence they need?

Theresa May: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the answer I give him will be the answer I have given throughout this statement, and indeed have given in the past: we will be working for that comprehensive free trade agreement that will enable businesses to trade freely with the European Union single market, and to trade in both goods and services with the European single market. That is what we want to achieve. I recognise the need for business to have as much certainty as possible as soon as possible. One of the things in the letter that I know business has been asking for is the concept of the implementation period, so that there is not a cliff edge when we leave, and so that they are able to put any new arrangements in place and have notification of that. That is exactly what I have suggested to President Tusk we should, at an early stage, agree will be a principle that we will abide by.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I call a Canterbury knight: Sir Julian Brazier.

Julian Brazier: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In strongly welcoming my right hon. Friend’s statement, may I particularly welcome what she said about remaining good Europeans, and does she agree that the fact that we are committed to NATO and its  2% undertaking, have troops deploying to eastern European neighbours who are embattled, and have troops fighting Daesh, which has brought horror to European cities, shows just what a good European country we are?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a very important point: it is not just about what we stand up and say; it is about what we actually do. As he says, what we are doing in NATO, the commitments we have given to our eastern European allies, and the work we are doing to counter Daesh—not just the military work we are doing, but also the co-operation between our intelligence services across Europe—are all important symbols of our commitment to ensuring that we play our part in maintaining security in Europe.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: The Prime Minister has stated that she will not provide a running commentary on negotiations. Earlier this week in the Financial Times, Michel Barnier stated:
“The unity of the 27 will be stronger when based on full transparency and public debate.”
I ask the Prime Minister: what exactly does it say about this so-called team approach if Members of this Parliament, and indeed devolved Governments across these islands, are set to hear more about the outcome of these vital talks from those on the other side of the negotiating table than from this Tory Government?

Theresa May: No. I have said clearly that when we are able to provide clarity, as we have done up until now and look to do in the future, we will do so. However, it is absolutely the case that if we are to get the best deal for the United Kingdom, we should not reveal every detail of our hand at every stage in the negotiations. We will be looking to ensure that clarity and information are available where that is appropriate.

Oliver Dowden: While seeking to protect and enhance workers’ rights, will the Prime Minister also seize the opportunity afforded by leaving the European Union for greater sectoral deregulation so that businesses are able to create wealth and prosperity, which we all need and upon which our public services ultimately rely?

Theresa May: At the point at which we leave the European Union, the acquis will be brought into UK law, which will provide businesses with certainty. It will then be up to the UK Government and the UK Parliament to determine what regulations remain in place in the future and what deregulation should take place.

Heidi Alexander: In her letter to Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister refers to the treaty on European Union and the treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community. She makes no reference, however, to the European economic area agreement, which underpins our membership of the single market. When and how does the Prime Minister intend to withdraw us from the EEA?

Theresa May: Membership of the EEA is linked to our membership of the European Union, and our notification in relation to leaving the European Union also covers the EEA.

David Nuttall: I warmly thank my right hon. Friend for, and congratulate her on, carrying out the wishes of the majority of my constituents in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington by triggering article 50 today. After 40 years of membership, the negotiations ahead could be long and difficult, but does she agree that what matters is the big picture? We are taking back control for this Parliament. We are taking back control of our borders. We are taking back control of our contributions.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The negotiations will be detailed, but we must always keep in our vision the big picture, as he describes it, that this is about control of our laws, control of our borders and control of our budgets. That was what people voted for when they voted to leave.

Margaret Ritchie: Michel Barnier, who will be directly involved in the negotiations, has put Northern Ireland at the top of his agenda because he was directly involved in the negotiations to establish the Special EU Programmes Body. Will the Prime Minister outline how she will ensure the protection of our fragile economy in Northern Ireland, and ensure tariff-free and continued access to the single European market, which is vital to the growing economy of the island of Ireland?

Theresa May: In overall terms, negotiating a comprehensive free trade agreement with what we want to achieve, which is tariff-free trade with the European single market, will cover the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. However, due to the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, we are conscious of the need for us to look carefully at the customs arrangements that will be put in place. We want to be able to have trade agreements with other countries around the world, and that has implications for the current rules in relation to membership of the customs union, but we are working actively with the Government of the Republic of Ireland to ensure that arrangements can be put in place that maintain the economy in Northern Ireland. As we have consistently said, and as the Taoiseach and others have said, we do not see a return to the borders of the past.

Shailesh Vara: I commend my right hon. Friend’s comments about the need for us all to work together to secure the best possible deal for our country at this momentous time in our history. She will be aware of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision that matters relating to relations with the European Union are to be dealt with exclusively by the UK Government and the UK Parliament, and are not for the devolved institutions. Given that this country regularly speaks to the rest of the world about the need to respect the rule of law, does she agree that it is important that politicians from all four nations of our country respect the rule of law themselves?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he says, it is the case that the Supreme Court found that there will be no veto for the devolved Administrations, but it is interesting that the SNP argues that a decision to remain in the European Union by Scottish voters should somehow be dealt with differently from the overall result of the referendum. When we had the  referendum in Scotland in 2014 on membership of the United Kingdom, I note that the SNP argued the exact opposite. It argued that the result as a whole was the only one that counted and that if parts of Scotland such as Orkney and Shetland voted differently, that should not be taken into account.

Peter Kyle: The Prime Minister has rightly spoken of unity. How will she respect and give a voice to the people and businesses who are extremely anxious about the journey on which the country has now embarked?

Theresa May: Of course we want to give certainty to businesses and others as soon as possible about the arrangements that will be put in place, but this will be a negotiation and there will be a degree of uncertainty. We cannot completely take away that uncertainty, but we can give clarity when we are able to do so, as we have been doing in the past few months.

David Rutley: I welcome the approach that my right hon. Friend is taking to secure a positive outcome in the negotiations ahead. Does she agree that Brexit is now a spur to action to tackle the long-standing economic challenges of productivity, skills and export performance? Will the Government’s modern industrial strategy help in achieving those important objectives?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have said before, the vote was not just about leaving the EU; it was about changing how the country works—and changing that forever—and about getting a stronger economy that works for everyone in which everybody plays by the same rules. We want growth and prosperity in every part of the United Kingdom, which is an important part of the future and of our plan for Britain. Our industrial strategy is absolutely right at the heart of delivering that.

George Kerevan: Will the Prime Minister explain why, in her long and detailed letter to President Tusk, which clearly took weeks to prepare, she somehow forgot to mention Gibraltar? Is it a case of out of sight, out of mind?

Theresa May: We are absolutely steadfast in our support of Gibraltar, its people and its economy. Our position has not changed. We have been firm in our commitment never to enter arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their wishes, nor to enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content. The letter is a notification in relation to our withdrawing from the European Union. Gibraltar is not a separate member of the EU, nor is it a part of the UK for the purposes of EU law, but we are clear that it is covered by our exit negotiations. We have committed to involving Gibraltar fully in the work that we are doing. We have been having regular discussions with the Government of Gibraltar, and we will continue to work with them in the future.

Dr Caroline Johnson: As the representative of a constituency that voted overwhelmingly to leave, as I did, I congratulate the Prime Minister on her leadership on this historic day. Much of my beautiful constituency is rural farmland,  and local farmers would like reassurance that their livelihoods will be protected as we leave the EU. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she will do all that she can to support British farming during the negotiations?

Theresa May: Yes. We have already been able to give some reassurance to farmers with our commitment on funding through to 2020 but, of course, we will then need to look at the arrangements that are put in place after the UK leaves the European Union. I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with farmers in all parts of the United Kingdom to look at what are the best arrangements for the way ahead.

Stephen Timms: There is a very big economic challenge ahead. Does the Prime Minister recognise that securing anything like the barrier-free access to the single market that she has rightly set as her goal will require some compromise—some middle ground—to be found on the question of free movement of people?

Theresa May: The decision that was taken on 23 June in relation to free movement was that it should be the UK Government who determine the immigration rules for people coming to the United Kingdom from the European Union. We will be putting forward proposals to the House in due course on what those future arrangements should be. We will not be stopping immigration from the European Union—we will not stop people coming into the United Kingdom—and we recognise that people will still move from the EU into the United Kingdom, but the important point is that the rules governing that movement will be determined by the UK Government.

Henry Smith: The Prime Minister is right that the UK is leaving the institutions of the European Union, not Europe itself. She is also right to talk of this country as “global Britain.” This nation is one of the world’s leading aviation powers and is an island trading nation. May I seek an assurance that, as we increasingly become a conduit between the rest of the world and Europe, the importance of aviation will be paramount?

Theresa May: Obviously a key element of the negotiations will be ensuring that we see no disruption to aviation arrangements so that people are able to continue flying between the UK and other parts of the European Union and elsewhere in the world. We recognise the importance of our aviation industry in terms of not just the work of the airlines themselves and our airports, but aviation manufacturing, which is also important to us.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. There must be some relief from the toil of being a Whip. I call Mr Mike Weir.

Michael Weir: The Prime Minister talks grandly about self-determination, so why is she so determined not to allow the Scottish people to exercise that very right when the details of the deal are known but before we are taken out of the EU?

Theresa May: As I have said before, now is not the time to talk about a second independence referendum. I simply remind the hon. Gentleman that, of course, in 2014 the SNP was clear that it was a once in a generation—indeed, a once in a lifetime—vote.

Nigel Evans: This is truly a red, white and blue letter day—[Interruption.] Shut up. The letter represents all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, and sending it ambassador class was a nice touch.
In her letter, the Prime Minister talked about the Brexpats—EU citizens living in the UK, and British citizens, including Scots, who live and work in other parts of the European Union. I know that she has said that she will not give a running commentary on the negotiations, but will she give us an assurance that, once a deal is reached on the Brexpats, she will inform them in order to ease the anxiety that they are currently feeling?

Theresa May: I can give that assurance. The point of trying to achieve a deal at an early stage is precisely so that we can tell people the nature of that deal, so that they can be reassured and do not have to worry about their future.

Andrew Slaughter: On days such as this, the Prime Minister should speak for the whole country, but she has chosen to speak for little more than half. Beyond empty rhetoric, what reassurances can she give to the 70% of my constituents who voted to remain, and to the one in six who are citizens of other EU countries and have real fears for their livelihoods, businesses and security?

Theresa May: As I indicated in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), the question of the status of EU citizens living here, and of UK citizens living in EU member states, is one that we hope to be able to address at an early stage of the negotiations so that we can give people security and an assurance for the future. Of course I recognise that there will be a degree of uncertainty for businesses until the future arrangements have been concluded and they know what they will be. I hope that we will be able to give businesses the certainty of implementation periods so that there will not be a cliff edge for them, but they can be assured that we will try to ensure that we get the most comprehensive free trade deal that is possible.

Lucy Frazer: Many people voted to leave the EU because they felt disengaged with politics and that the institutions did not work for them. Over the next 18 months, will the Prime Minister therefore not only work to ensure that we retain a place in the world, but deliver on our domestic agenda to ensure that people feel our Government are working for them?

Theresa May: My hon. and learned Friend makes the important point that although there will be complex negotiations in relation to Brexit, it is important that the Government continue to put in place our plan for Britain and our domestic agenda for a stronger economy, a fairer society and a global outlook for the United Kingdom. Our work on trade with other nations around the world will be an important part of that.

Owen Thompson: The Prime Minister told us that Brexit meant Brexit. Now that the Scottish Parliament has voted for a second Scottish independence referendum, will she realise and acknowledge that Scotref means Scotref, and agree to any section 30 application?

Theresa May: If we are to make a success of Brexit, we will all need to pull together at this time to ensure that we get the best possible deal for the United Kingdom. Of course, Scotland voted in September 2014 to remain a member of the United Kingdom.

Julian Sturdy: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, her tone in embracing the whole United Kingdom and her emphasis on pursuing a Brexit that works for everyone. Will she reassure me that agriculture and the environment, which are closely linked, will not become a sacrificial lamb in any future trade negotiations?

Theresa May: In our trade negotiations with the European Union and others around the world, we will be very conscious of the need to ensure that we respect the requirements for our environment, and for our agriculture, food and farming industry here in the United Kingdom. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to maintain our commitment to both those issues.

Keith Vaz: I congratulate the Prime Minister on her stamina, as she has been at the Dispatch Box for two and a half hours and we are only halfway through. At the Home Affairs Committee, we at least gave her a chair to sit on throughout our sessions.
I congratulate the Prime Minister on her appointment of Mark Sedwill as the new national security adviser. He will be a loss to the Home Office, but an asset to her. May I press her on policing and security? We have seen the headlines in the letter to Donald Tusk, but will we remain a full member of Europol throughout the negotiations? Will we have full access to the criminal databases of the EU, and is one of her ambitions that we retain that access when we leave the EU?

Theresa May: While we remain a member of the European Union, we will continue to have the access and membership arrangements on those various issues that we currently have. It is certainly my expectation that we will look to negotiate continued access to the various ways in which we share information with EU member states today. That is in not just our interest, but the interest of the EU.

Mark Francois: This is a great day for our country as we take back full control of our national destiny. Historically, we have been a free trading nation that has been outward looking with a global perspective. Does the Prime Minister agree that that which is historically in our national DNA will stand us in good stead as we go through these critical negotiations?

Theresa May: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, which is why I am optimistic and ambitious for the United Kingdom. That spirit of trading around  the world—that outward-looking spirit we have always had in the UK—will indeed stand us in good stead in the future.

Jonathan Reynolds: Will the Prime Minister confirm her understanding of what will need to happen on the European side to ratify the new deal with the UK, which we all want to see? Will this be a decision, as part of the exit negotiations, by the Council of Ministers and by the Commission, or will this require ratification by every remaining EU member state national Parliament and, in some cases, regional Parliament? Clearly, that could cause a lot of uncertainty if just one member state opposes the terms we have negotiated for our exit.

Theresa May: The extent to which any part of the deal requires full ratification by every individual member state and every constituent part of the European Union will vary according to the nature of the aspect of the deal, but overall it will be necessary for the European Parliament and for the nation states to ratify.

Martin Vickers: For those of us who campaigned and voted for Brexit not just last year, but in 1975 this is a great day and one for celebration. Some 70% of my Cleethorpes constituents and of those in neighbouring Grimsby voted for Brexit last June, partly as a result of continuing anger and resentment at the sell-out of the fishing industry in the original negotiations. The Prime Minister has already reassured me that the fishing industry will be looked after, but the associated seafood industry is very much dependent on the fishing industry. I have already met industry leaders in my constituency who see both opportunities and concerns, so will she reassure me that the seafood processing industry will be a key part of the negotiations?

Theresa May: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we want to ensure not only that we get a good future for our fishing industry, but that those parts of industry that rely on fishing will also have a good future here in the UK. We will be taking that into account.

Eilidh Whiteford: Thousands of EU nationals who are doing essential and useful jobs in our agriculture and fisheries sector, and in our public sector, still do not know what their status is going to be two years from now. Is the UK Government’s position so weak that they need to use these people as bargaining fodder in their negotiations? Why will the Prime Minister not make a good-will gesture and guarantee their rights?

Theresa May: As the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and as the Parliament of the United Kingdom, I think we should all have care not just for EU citizens living here, but for United Kingdom citizens living in the European Union. We want to ensure reciprocal arrangements guaranteeing the rights on both sides.

Sarah Wollaston: I welcome the Prime Minister’s clear commitment to a positive, constructive and respectful approach to the negotiations that lie ahead. May I press her further on behalf of the fishing community in my constituency and around the United Kingdom? She will know that in the past these people have been badly let down during negotiations, so  will she give an equally clear commitment that the fishing community will receive a sufficiently high priority during the negotiations ahead?

Theresa May: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we are very conscious of the needs of the fishing industry. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been talking to the fishing industry. The Secretary of State and others have been looking carefully at the arrangements that will need to be put in place in the interests of the fishing industry, and that will be an important part of our considerations in future.

Kate Green: Young people are very distressed and sad that we are leaving the European Union. Many of them did not vote for it and many did not even get a say in this decision, but they are the generation most greatly affected by it. What will the Prime Minister do to ensure that she listens to and engages with the next generation?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady makes an important point, because decisions we take now about how we leave the European Union, what our arrangements are in future and what we do here in the United Kingdom in things such as technical education and our industrial strategy are about the next generation. I want to ensure that we are ambitious for the whole of this country and ambitious to ensure that bright future for the next generation, and that is what this Government will be working for.

Richard Drax: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the resolute way in which she has pushed through the will of the British people? Does she agree that the logical conclusion to invoking article 50 will be regaining control of our destiny? That means that all the rules and regulations that govern our lives will be made in this place or in these islands, and not by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the issue that I believe led to many people voting to leave the European Union: they wanted to feel that decisions about their future were being taken here in the United Kingdom and not in Brussels.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: From among the ranks of the boisterous bunch of the Scottish National party, I think we should hear a voice of serenity and good conduct. I call Michelle Thomson.

Michelle Thomson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs has spoken clearly in saying:
“We have also taken note of the fact that UK citizens voted differently in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and also in Gibraltar, making it clear that the majority of them would wish to remain in the Union. It is difficult to imagine that those differences could be ignored and discarded in the process of Brexit.”
How is it that our friends and partners in Europe are so clear about making our voices heard, yet the right hon. Lady completely ignores and discards them?

Theresa May: The Government are not completely ignoring and discarding voices. What we are doing is focusing on the best possible outcome for the whole of the United Kingdom. I look at that best possible outcome very simply in terms of: what ends do we want to achieve? We want that free trade agreement—we want that free trade arrangement. I understood that a comprehensive free trade agreement was actually what the Scottish Government wanted to see, and we will be working for it.

John Stevenson: The food and drinks manufacturing sector is the largest manufacturing sector in the UK; it is innovative, it is a significant exporter and it employs a lot of people up and down the country. It is also an area significantly affected by EU law, so during the forthcoming negotiations will the Prime Minister be sensitive to the needs of this important sector and ensure that it is able to compete on a level playing field?

Theresa May: I assure my hon. Friend that we are listening to the voices of various industrial and other sectors around the country to ensure that we take account of the particular concerns they have as we look ahead to leaving the European Union, because we want to ensure that we are able to build on the success we already have. He talks about innovation and success, and we want to be able to build on that for the future, so we will be taking those interests very firmly into account.

Catherine McKinnell: The Prime Minister’s letter to President Tusk states:
“In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened.”
Given that, will she clarify whether she is still threatening to walk away with no deal if she does not get the economic deal she wants?

Theresa May: I go on to make it very clear in the letter that not having arrangements—not having agreements on these issues—would not be in the interests of the UK and the European Union, and we should work to ensure that we secure a deal.

Kevin Foster: I thank the Prime Minister for her statement. Will she confirm that during the Brexit negotiations she will pay close attention to the concerns of people in Gibraltar, that we will maintain the effective working of the border with Spain and their market access to the UK, and that these negotiations will not be used as a back door to questions about their sovereignty, given that Gibraltarians, unlike some separatist movements, want to respect the result of once-in-a-generation referendums?

Theresa May: I can give reassurance to my hon. Friend; we have set up a Joint Ministerial Council with the Government of Gibraltar to discuss the particular issues they have and to make sure that their concerns are taken into account as we enter these negotiations. We are committed to continuing to engage with Gibraltar as we leave the EU.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is a jovial jackanapes, so I think we should put him out of his misery and hear from the fella.

Angus MacNeil: You already have—

John Bercow: We have already heard from the fella—I had forgotten. I do apologise. [Hon. Members: “More!”] No, once is enough. I call Dr Rupa Huq.

Rupa Huq: Even an ardent remainer like me recognises that we now have a golden opportunity to reshape immigration policy. The Prime Minister spoke in her statement of “a truly global Britain”, so will she apply that principle and, at the earliest opportunity in the next two years, remove international students from net migration targets? That would send out the message that we are a welcoming nation and stem the plummeting tide of EU applications to our universities.

Theresa May: Whether or not international students are included in the net migration target is not a message about our country and how we welcome people. We welcome students coming to this country—we are very clear about that—but in the statistics we abide by the international definition used by countries around the world. We want to ensure that the brightest and the best are indeed able to come to the United Kingdom and get the value of a UK education.

Jeremy Lefroy: I welcome the seven principles in the Prime Minister’s letter, particularly the first, on constructive and respectful engagement, and the fifth, about the importance of the
“UK’s unique relationship with the Republic of Ireland”,
the Belfast agreement and the peace process. Does she agree that to achieve the best possible outcome for all our constituents, there should on both sides be the minimum of red lines and the maximum flexibility?

Theresa May: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we are able to be flexible in the negotiations. The key thing is that in everything we do we put the British national interest first.

Patrick Grady: I do not know whether the Prime Minister is yet aware of reports about the draft European Parliament resolution that will be discussed this afternoon, but it includes the recognition that
“a large number of United Kingdom citizens, including a majority in Northern Ireland and Scotland, voted to remain in the EU”.
It does not mention Maidenhead, perhaps because the people of Maidenhead, unlike the people of Scotland, did not have an independence referendum in which they were told that voting to remain in the United Kingdom also meant voting to remain in the European Union.

Theresa May: The Scottish National party cannot have it all ways; it wanted to leave the United Kingdom, which would have meant leaving the European Union.

Rehman Chishti: I very much welcome the way the Prime Minister has taken forward the will of the British people, including the majority of my constituents. On security and on fighting terrorism and extremism, in 2014 there were 20 Daesh-inspired or enabled terrorist acts around the world, and in 2015 there were 60 such events. The United Kingdom has always had intelligence-sharing arrangements with our partners around the world, wherever they might be. Does the Prime Minister agree that there is a moral obligation on every international partner, whenever they have information that could prevent a terrorist act, to provide it to their international partners? We are all in it together to fight the evil of terrorism.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are working together to fight terrorism. Of course, many of the exchanges that take place on intelligence matters are not part of European Union structures.

Susan Elan Jones: Agriculture is devolved to the Welsh Government. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether any repatriated powers relating to agriculture will transfer to the Welsh Government?

Theresa May: There are powers that are devolved to the devolved Administrations on the basis that they are subject to decisions taken at European Union level. Once we leave the European Union, those decisions will of course come to the United Kingdom. We want an open discussion with all the devolved Administrations about what is right to ensure that we keep a single market operating in the United Kingdom. As I said in my letter to President Tusk and repeated in my statement, it is our expectation that we will see significantly increased decision-making powers moving to the devolved Administrations when we leave.

James Cartlidge: Today, we are embarking on a journey that is undoubtedly motivated in part by a desire to control immigration, but is not the reality that as we sit here, the public services and economy in entire swaths of our country are dependent on very hard-working EU migrants just to function? Does the Prime Minister agree that in seeking to control immigration, many people in this country want to see it at significantly lower levels? Does she also agree that in practice that will not be possible until such time as we reform our welfare state and education system so that we can replace our reliance on foreign labour with more use of local talent?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We do need to ensure that people here in the United Kingdom have the skills and incentives to be able to take up the jobs that are available so that businesses here do not find it so necessary to rely on bringing in labour from abroad. Of course we recognise the valuable contribution that EU citizens are making to our economy and our society, and we will want to ensure that we take the interests of businesses and others into account as we shape our future immigration rules.

Mark Durkan: The Prime Minister’s letter refers to doing nothing to jeopardise the peace process, and to the need to uphold the Belfast agreement.  Does she recognise that the Belfast agreement exists in several strands, including strand two, which provides a framework for all-island co-operation and north-south joint implementation in key areas? It was presumed that all that was going to happen in the context of common membership of the EU, and using EU programmes. If that strand is not to be diminished and the agreement is not to be damaged, how are the Government going to do all that while at the same time saying that there can be no differential treatment for Northern Ireland, either inside the UK or by the EU? They cannot uphold strand two of the agreement and also put down that red line in respect of Northern Ireland’s prospects.

Theresa May: We are very conscious of the arrangements in the Belfast agreement and of the practical issues that will arise as a result of the UK leaving the European Union because of the land border with the Republic of Ireland. We are also very conscious of the work taking place across the border, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, on a whole variety of areas. That is why we are working very closely with the Republic of Ireland Government to ensure that we are able to preserve the developments that have taken place and the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland. We recognise the importance of the Belfast agreement in the peace process and the future of Northern Ireland.

Thomas Tugendhat: It is a great honour indeed not to be the last Member on the Government Benches to be called, Mr Speaker.
Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in thanking all those who have done so much to increase the prosperity and liberty of the European continent over the past 40 years? On this day, of all days, we should remember that the change we have seen on the continent is so great that the President of the European Union is a man born under tyranny who now leads an impressive Union, which we have chosen to leave. Like the great democrat he is, he has taken the sovereign will of the British people quietly and sensibly, and he is working with our Government to ensure that the Prime Minister can deliver exactly what the people voted for. Will my right hon. Friend join me in hoping that the tone of friendship she has demonstrated today in her statement and in her letter, and that President Tusk has demonstrated in his reception of it, will continue through both negotiating teams and all Ministers?

Theresa May: I absolutely agree. As we look at the negotiation, it is important that at every level and in every part of those negotiations we maintain a constructive and positive approach. That is the best way of getting the best possible agreement at the end.

Rachael Maskell: On 23 June, my constituents were not asked whether they wanted to leave the single market or the customs unions. If we do not reach a tariff-free trade agreement with the EU, does the Prime Minister agree that membership of the single market and the customs union is better than no deal or a bad deal?

Theresa May: Constituents were asked on 23 June whether they wanted us to remain a member of the European Union, with everything that membership entailed.  The majority of people throughout the United Kingdom decided to vote to leave the European Union. That has a number of consequences. I have been clear that we want to negotiate a comprehensive free trade agreement that will provide for continuing free trade between the UK and the European Union, but it will be a different relationship in future.

Mark Pawsey: I am sure there is no dishonour in being the last Member on the Government Benches to be called.
Last week, a new car factory opened in my constituency, with £300 million of investment to build a new hybrid London taxi. Will the Prime Minister ensure that her article 50 negotiations will enable the UK to continue to secure that kind of valuable and important inward investment?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am pleased to say that we have seen significant commitments to inward investment into the UK, not only in the automotive industry in recent months, but in things such as the SoftBank takeover of ARM Holdings. At the UK-Qatar business and investment conference yesterday, the Qataris committed to setting up a £5 billion fund for investment in infrastructure here in the UK. That is a real vote of confidence in the UK.

Ian Blackford: When the Prime Minister talks about self-determination, may I say respectfully to her that what is good for the goose is good for the gander? Will she please respect that the people of Scotland voted to remain within Europe, and that our democratically elected Parliament has now also voted on that and is seeking a section 30 agreement from this Government so that the people of Scotland, on the basis that we are being dragged out of the European Union against our will, have our right to a say? To quote back to us the 2014 referendum is disrespectful, because we were told at that point that our place in Europe was secure. Prime Minister, do the right thing: allow the people of Scotland to have their say.

Theresa May: I assume that the hon. Gentleman voted to leave the United Kingdom in that referendum, and that would have been a vote to leave the European Union.

Louise Haigh: As well as benefiting from the free trade in goods and services, we also benefit from the free flow of data across borders. In the nightmare scenario that we Brexit without a data adequacy agreement in place, British businesses will be forced to renegotiate millions of contracts with the European Union. Is it the Prime Minister’s understanding, as it is mine, that we cannot begin those negotiations until we Brexit? Will she make sure that preparing for those negotiations is a key priority for the future of the British economy?

Theresa May: We absolutely recognise that the issue of data—the exchange of data and the security of data—needs to be addressed, because it underpins so much of what else happens. As the hon. Lady will probably know, new arrangements in the form of a data protection directive are being put in place inside the European Union. We will need to ensure that, when we  leave, the arrangements are in place to continue to enable the necessary flow of data, and I would expect them to be part of the negotiations as we go forward.

Natalie McGarry: The European Commission has today confirmed that the negotiations will be complete by autumn 2018. As we have heard, the European Parliament Brexit resolution includes recognition that a majority of people in Scotland voted to remain in the EU. Yesterday, the democratic will of the Scottish people was expressed by a democratic vote in the democratically elected Scottish Parliament for the transfer of powers to hold a democratic and legal referendum, which is wholly compatible with the publicly expressed timetables of the Prime Minister, the European Union and the First Minister. Today, and in the past few months, we have seen major EU figures and institutions respect Scotland’s democratic voice. Will the Prime Minister tell us when she will do so, too?

Theresa May: I have been very clear on this, and I can only repeat what I have said before: now is not the time for a second independence referendum. It is important that we work together to ensure that we get the best possible deal for everybody across the United Kingdom, including the people of Scotland.

Daniel Zeichner: The Prime Minister expresses confidence that a free trade agreement with the European Union will be secured, but she will know that any trade agreement requires a mechanism to resolve disputes. She does not like the European Court of Justice, so what does she want to put in its place, how much will it cost and who will pay for it?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is right: if a country has a trade agreement it is necessary to have a dispute resolution in place. There are various models for trade agreements around the world, and, obviously, this will be part of the negotiations.

Peter Grant: In her letter to President Tusk, the Prime Minister has promised that negotiations will take
“due account of the specific interests of every nation and region of the UK”.
Will she tell us whose advice she will listen to to make sure that she is fully appraised of the specific interests of the region of which my constituency forms a part?

Theresa May: We will work with the devolved Administrations, but we will also listen to businesses and others from across the United Kingdom as they make clear to us their interests as the negotiations go forward.

Chris Matheson: Like the Prime Minister, I supported the remain campaign in the referendum. Unlike the Prime Minister, I have been consistent in my view about how damaging Brexit will be, while she careers towards the hardest of Brexits, presumably a prisoner of the right-wing ideological Brexiteers on her own Benches. May I ask her about the executive agencies that will need to be established to replace, for example, the European Aviation Safety  Agency, Euratom, or Medicines Control? Has she identified how many of those agencies we will need to have up and running in the next 18 months, how much they will cost and whether we have the capacity to staff them?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in the premise of his question. When he says that the Government are going for the hardest of hard Brexits; we are not. I have been very clear in my letter to President Tusk, in my statement today and in everything else that I have said in this Chamber that we are looking for a comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union. We can achieve that and that is what we will be working for.

Steven Paterson: When will Scotland receive the enhanced powers, including over immigration, that were promised during the EU referendum by the then Secretary of State for Justice?

Theresa May: On the powers that are being repatriated from Brussels to the United Kingdom, we have been very clear that we will be entering discussions with the devolved Administrations about how those powers should best be dealt with—whether they should remain within the UK framework or be further devolved. I am clear that significant decision-making powers will be coming down to the devolved Administrations.

Sammy Wilson: I wish the Prime Minister well in these negotiations. She carries a heavy burden on her shoulders, because, of course, she carries the hopes of millions of people across the United Kingdom who look forward to the bright future outside the EU, free from the dictation of how our laws come and how our money is spent. May I also welcome the fact that her Ministers have spent so much time on dealing with the issue of the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? Sadly, we may not have a working Northern Ireland Assembly in place during those negotiations. Will she specifically tell us how the interests of Northern Ireland will be represented during the ongoing negotiations?

Theresa May: First, I hope that we can work to ensure that we do have a Northern Ireland Assembly and a Northern Ireland Executive in place, so that we are able to have that interlocutor in Northern Ireland as we go forward and as we take the views of Northern Ireland forward in the negotiations. It is in all of our interests to work for that devolved Government not just for that reason, but because it is the right outcome and the right decision for Northern Ireland. In the absence of such a Government, we will continue to talk to the political parties within Northern Ireland and to take wider views, as we are doing, across the whole of the United Kingdom from businesses and others about their concerns for their interests within Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom.

Brendan O'Hara: For weeks, the Prime Minister made it abundantly clear that she did not want the Scottish Parliament to vote in favour of having a referendum on independence. No one could have been left in any doubt as to what her position was on that matter, but given that the Scottish Parliament last night voted by a clear and unambiguous majority in  favour of having a referendum on independence, my question is this: regardless of her personal preference, and recognising her commitment for constructive and respectful dialogue, will she now respect that democratic decision?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the Scottish Parliament was very clear when it came to consider that issue. As I understand it, there was a majority in favour of article 30, but I was very clear that now is not the time for a second independence referendum, or to be talking about that. Now is the time for the United Kingdom to come together and to focus on the historic decision that we have taken and the negotiations that we now have to ensure the right deal for the whole of the United Kingdom, including the people of Scotland.

Neil Gray: The Prime Minister said in July, at the same time as promising a UK-wide agreement, that she wanted to make this country work for everyone. This week we see cuts to disability support in the form of personal independence payments and employment and support allowance. Will she explain how Brexit Britain will be any different in delivering the socially just society that she keeps on promising?

Theresa May: In my plan for Britain, I have set out our plans for a fairer society. I have also looked ahead to the various things that we will put in place to ensure that we have a society in this country where people are able to succeed on merit and not on privilege, where we have a stronger economy, and where people play by the same rules. The hon. Gentleman mentioned issues relating to welfare, but powers relating to welfare have been given to the Scottish Government in certain areas, and I understand that they have yet to use them.

Carol Monaghan: This morning I witnessed a construction worker telling some eastern European workers, “You lot can go home now.” Without guarantees for our EU national friends, colleagues and family, this xenophobic behaviour and rhetoric will only increase. Does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time to show leadership in granting unilaterally the rights of our EU national friends?

Theresa May: None of us wants to see xenophobic behaviour from people here in the United Kingdom. We have welcomed EU citizens, they have worked alongside us and lived alongside us, and they contribute to our economy and our society. Looking ahead, I want to ensure that we get a reciprocal agreement for EU citizens living here and for UK citizens—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady shakes her head. This is the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We have a duty to have a care for UK citizens.

Calum Kerr: The Prime Minister’s commitment to get the best possible deal for the UK offers little reassurance to those in rural Scotland, because their experience, from the allocation of convergence farm payments to Scottish fishing being expendable, shows where they are in the Conservative Government’s priority list. We understand the need for UK frameworks, but will she offer those in rural Scotland reassurance today by confirming that  powers over Scottish agriculture and Scottish fishing will go to the Scottish Parliament and that Scottish officials will represent Scottish interests in negotiations?

Theresa May: I have been very clear about the process that we will be undertaking for the repatriation of powers. We want to ensure that we have a continuing single market within the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman speaks up for Scottish fishing and, of course, a number of my hon. Friends have spoken up for the fishing industry in other parts of the United Kingdom. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that agriculture and fishing will be taken into account, as we recognise their importance for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Patricia Gibson: Given that the Prime Minister earlier compared the nation of Scotland to the constituency of Maidenhead, I am not clear that she fully understands that the UK is composed of four nations and not one. Will she outline exactly what practical concessions the UK Government have made to the devolved Governments’ concerns as part of the UK-wide approach to article 50? Or is it a case of “Lemmings Unite” as we leap off the Brexit cliff together?

Theresa May: There is a very simple point, which is that across the United Kingdom people voted in the referendum in different ways. But the majority of the UK electorate voted to leave the European Union, and the Government are respecting that vote. We will continue to work with the devolved Administrations and have taken them into account. There are many areas in which we have common ground with the Scottish Government, such as in wanting comprehensive access to the European single market, wanting to protect workers’ rights and wanting to recognise the importance of science and innovation. We have common ground with the Scottish Government on all those points; it is just unfortunate that they do not seem to recognise where we have common ground with them and that they are not willing to acknowledge that.

Ronnie Cowan: Today’s statement was full of clichés, platitudes and jingoism, but no answers. When will the Government of Scotland, democratically elected to represent the nation of Scotland—a nation that voted to remain in the EU—be given the opportunity to contribute by supplying the facts and the figures that are so lacking? We have had one vacuous vow; we do not need another one.

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman talks about representation from Scotland. Of course, he and his colleagues represent Scottish constituencies in the United Kingdom Parliament; he is a constituent part of that Parliament and will be part of the discussions as we go forward.

Callum McCaig: In an act of self-determination, the Scottish Parliament voted yesterday to hold an independence referendum. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that now is not the time, which is interesting as nobody is planning to hold a referendum now, only at the conclusion of the negotiations that commence today. To paraphrase Ruth Davidson, what part of “now” does the Prime Minister not understand?

Theresa May: I have answered questions on this throughout this afternoon, and my position has not changed.

Drew Hendry: While the Prime Minister was delivering her Battenberg address earlier, she indicated that she would continue to ignore Scotland. Is she aware of the comments of Tory MSP Annie Wells, who says that she does not respect the sovereignty of the Scottish Parliament, and will the Prime Minister distance herself from those remarks?

Theresa May: I did not say that I was going to ignore the views of Scotland. In fact, we make it very clear in the letter that was sent to President Tusk that the views of all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom will be taken into account in our negotiations.

Chris Stephens: As the Prime Minister has had difficulty with constitutional issues, let me ask about another issue dear to conservatism: workers’ rights. Will the Prime Minister pledge that employment rights for women that derive from EU legislation and ECJ rulings on equal pay, pregnancy and maternity and protection against discrimination will be retained and, if so, will she outline the processes to maintain those protections?

Theresa May: I set out the objectives of our negotiations in the speech I gave at Lancaster House in January, and the protection of workers’ rights was one element in that speech. In the further statements that I have made, today and at other times, I have been very clear that this Government want to protect workers’ rights and to enhance them.

Lisa Cameron: Ploughing on regardless, does the Prime Minister feel that she can simply ride roughshod over the will of the Scottish people on the EU and now the mandate of the Scottish Government? Is the Prime Minister in denial, or is this a deliberate policy of disrespect?

Theresa May: There is no question of riding roughshod over the votes of anybody in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom held a referendum. This Parliament agreed that the decision to leave the European Union or not should be given to the British people across the whole of the United Kingdom, and they chose to vote to leave the European Union. The Government are now respecting the result of that referendum.

Alan Brown: Despite her having a majority in this House, there are a few facts that the Prime Minister needs to remember about the 2015 general election. First, the Tories only got 36% of the vote in the UK. They got less than 15% of the vote in Scotland and only one MP—their worst performance since 1865. In last year’s Scottish Parliament election, the Ruth Davidson party was still only third in the constituency votes. By contrast, the SNP Government were re-elected with the biggest vote share of any Government in western Europe, and in their manifesto was a pledge to hold a referendum if Scotland was dragged out of Europe against its will. The Prime  Minister says that she has answered this question but why, then, with absolutely no mandate in Scotland whatsoever, does she think that she can continue to stand at the Dispatch Box and try to take control of the timing of the referendum?

Theresa May: This is the United Kingdom Parliament and as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom I have said, and I continue to say, that I think that now is not the time for a second independence referendum. Indeed, now is not the time to be focusing on a second independence referendum. At this time, we should be focusing on working to ensure that we get the best deal for the whole of the United Kingdom as we leave the EU.

Gavin Newlands: In both her statement and her letter to President Tusk, the Prime Minister speaks of the expectation that the devolved Governments’ powers will be increased. I am sure that she will want to honour the promises made to win the referendum, so will she confirm that the powers devolved to Scotland will include immigration, as promised by the then Justice Secretary during the campaign? Or is now not the time?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the issue of immigration was considered by the Smith commission but was not determined by the commission as one of the issues that should be delegated. I repeat what I said in the letter and what I have said again today: I think that as a result of the repatriation powers we will see significant decision-making powers being given to the devolved Administrations, over and above what they have today.

Marion Fellows: The stated position of the UK Government was that
“the UK is a family of nations, a partnership of equals”.
Why then, are the UK Prime Minister and her Secretary of State for Scotland so disrespectful of the people and Parliament of Scotland, and why are they running so scared of a Scottish referendum 18 months to two years down the line?

Theresa May: There is no disrespect for anybody. What there is is respect for putting into place the vote that was taken by the people of the United Kingdom on 23 June last year.

Tommy Sheppard: Last year, the Prime Minister gave her word that she would seek an agreed United Kingdom approach to Brexit with the devolved Administrations. In order to assist us in making a judgment about what her word is worth, can she give the House a single example of a suggestion or request made by the Scottish Government that she has taken on board—a single one; any one?

Theresa May: I have already set out that there are many areas of issues that the Scottish Government have raised in their paper on which we agree, as will become clear when we respond to that paper.

Stuart McDonald: rose—

John Bercow: Patience rewarded—Stuart C. McDonald.

Stuart McDonald: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wonder, how would the Prime Minister have responded if Donald Tusk had simply said, “Now is not the time”?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman, with his background, will know that the treaty on European Union enables the member state to trigger article 50 in the way in which we have done. It is then for the European Union to respond to that by setting out the basis of two years of negotiations.

John Bercow: May I thank all 113 Back-Bench Members who questioned the Prime Minister? May I also thank the Prime Minister, who has been with us for the past three hours and 21 minutes, and attending to this statement for the past two hours and 46 minutes? In the name of courtesy, we ought to say a big thank you to her.

Points of Order

Tom Brake: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Liberal Democrats believe that Brexit will cause untold damage to the UK’s economy and influence in the world, but the Government have triggered article 50, so we will do all in our power to ensure that it is a success. But Mr Speaker, if it is not a success, what guidance can you give me on how those responsible for any such damage—the Prime Minister, and the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, for International Trade, for International Development and for Exiting the European Union—will truly be held to account in this House for their actions and their failure? The blame should not simply be shifted to the remainers, the European Union or anyone else they choose to blame.

John Bercow: I do not wish to be unkind to the right hon. Gentleman, who has served as Deputy Leader of the House, no less, but I simply say two things. First, I am, on the whole, wary of entertaining hypotheticals and, at the moment, the right hon. Gentleman, perfectly legitimately, is using the ruse of a point of order to raise a hypothetical. The second point is that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, all Members of this House have not only a right but, frankly, a responsibility, on whichever side of the House they sit, to hold the Executive to account. That is a primary function of a Member of Parliament. All I can say is that however the situation evolves, the right hon. Gentleman can rest content that those who seek to hold the Executive to account will always have a friend in the Chair.

Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You and I, and several other Members of this House, have taken more than a passing interest in one of the largest infrastructure projects in Europe: HS2. It has been brought to my attention on the wires this afternoon—[Interruption.] The Press Association is, I believe, known as “the wires”, for those who have been around as long as I have. It has been brought to my attention that the engineering firm that was handed a £170 million deal last month to develop phase 2b of HS2 has announced that it is pulling out of that section of the project amid alleged conflicts of interest. CH2M is also the firm that has been awarded a £350 million deal to develop phase 1 of the line from London to Birmingham.
The comments that came from the CH2M spokesman—allegedly, on the wires—say:
“The protracted delays and ongoing speculation risk further delays to this critical national infrastructure, thereby increasing costs to UK taxpayers, as well as to the firm.”
The spokesman goes on to say that the company is
“fully committed to…delivering phase 1 on time and within budget”,
but this is a pretty amazing announcement from one of the main contractors on HS2.
Mr Speaker, I wondered if you had had any indication at all from the Department for Transport that a Minister intends to come to the House to explain this extraordinary state of affairs. After all, this now raises questions over the large amounts of taxpayers’ money that are being  sunk into the project. This House needs to be the first to know, and not by reading it on the Press Association wires.

John Bercow: I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order, to which I respond as follows. First, and very much in the margins of what she had to say, there seemed to be some furrowed brows and moderately noisy reactions to her reference to what she heard “on the wires.” It seemed to be a fairly unexceptionable observation made by the right hon. Lady. She will recall that the Father of the House in the last Parliament, the great Sir Peter Tapsell, was wont to recount to the House what he had heard on, as he put it, “the wireless” that morning, by comparison with which the right hon. Lady’s statement is positively modern.
Secondly, the matter was news to me of only a few moments ago when the right hon. Lady mentioned it to me at the Chair. It is certainly a significant development involving a large-scale contractor and very significant sums of public money. No, I have received no indication from a Minister of any intention to make a statement on the matter. That may be because there is no such intention, or it may be the courtesy of Ministers not wanting to approach me when I am attending to my duties in the Chair. I fear that that is probably the triumph of optimism over reality, but it is possible that it might explain the situation. All I would say is that, if memory serves me correctly, we have questions to the Secretary of State for Transport tomorrow. If the record is anything by which to judge—and I suspect it is—the right hon. Lady will be in her place, and there will almost certainly be an opportunity to raise this matter with the Secretary of State. I look forward to that exchange with eager anticipation as, I am sure, does the House.

Employment and Support Allowance

Application for emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

John Bercow: I now call Neil Gray to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. The hon. Gentleman has up to three minutes in which to make such an application.

Neil Gray: I seek leave to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely mitigating support for the employment and support allowance work-related activity group. There is an urgent need for the House to discuss the cuts to be applied to the ESA WRAG.
We have known about this cut for some time; indeed, I have raised the issue in collaboration with others on a cross-party basis on a number of occasions. The cut is unanimously opposed by disability charities and disabled people’s organisations, but it comes into force next week, and the House has not been given the information we were promised about what the Government will do to ensure that ESA recipients—new and existing—are not financially penalised.
I will use the couple of minutes I have to appeal to the House for a fuller debate, but also to appeal to the Government. Next week, a cut of one third to the income of ESA WRAG participants will begin, taking their income down from £100 a week down to £73 a week. That means that many sick and disabled people found unfit for work will be £30 a week worse off—money desperately needed to pay bills, stay healthy and undertake work-related activity, such as volunteering or attending courses.
A large proportion of those currently in the ESA WRAG are struggling to make ends meet on what they receive now, with that “extra” £30 a week. We have no idea what the impact on them will be when ESA for the WRAG is cut back. These are people with disabilities or mental health conditions. They want to work, but are currently unable to. Pushing them further towards, or deeper into, poverty will hinder, not help, any move towards employment. They face the double indignity of wanting to work but being unable to find a job, and then being told that the level of financial support they are struggling to live on is a disincentive to work. That should shame us.
In November, MPs from eight political parties, plus independents, helped to unanimously carry a motion I brought to the House calling for the UK Government to pause these cuts. We were promised by the Minister that mitigations would be in place before next week, but there has been no oral statement, no written statement and no announcement—just vague commitments to social tariffs and hardship funds. That is no way to treat people desperate for this support. I have been asking questions—I did so on Monday—and I do not take the lack of a proper response personally, as the expert charities have been seeking the same information, only to receive the same vague responses.
I know that time is tight this week of all weeks. I understand that, but time is not on the side of people who desperately need this support. That is why I make this request of you, Mr Speaker, and why I am grateful to have had some time to appeal to the Government. It is not too late for them to publish details of the support they have secured, which they promised will make up for the cut of £30 per week. This is the last chance we have to discuss this issue, which has united Members across political divides, before it is too late and before nothing can be done. I hope Ministers hear this and act.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely mitigating support for the employment and support allowance work-related activity group.
I have listened carefully to the application from the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid I am not persuaded that this matter is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. As the hon. Gentleman, and doubtless colleagues, will be aware, the Standing Order does not permit me to give my reasons to the House. That said, and although, certainly, today was the last opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to seek such a debate before we depart for the recess, there may well be an opportunity for this matter to be debated in another way upon our return, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will eagerly seize any such opportunity.

PUBLIC AUTHORITY (ACCOUNTABILITY)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Andy Burnham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set a requirement on public institutions, public servants and officials and on those carrying out functions on their behalf to act in the public interest and with candour and frankness; to define the public law duty on them to assist courts, official inquiries and investigations; to enable victims to enforce such duties; to create offences for the breach of certain duties; to provide funding for victims and their relatives in certain proceedings before the courts and at official inquiries and investigations; and for connected purposes.
Next month marks the 28th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster and the first anniversary of the historic verdict of the second inquest. Whatever the sense of relief felt a year ago, it will never wipe away the pain of the 27 wilderness years between those two events and the incalculable toll on thousands of lives. We await accountability for that.
All those years, the evidence sat in official files, but our political, legal and coronial systems did not uncover it. Nor did the media. Worse, they actively colluded in a cover-up advanced in the Committee Rooms of this House. I said it then, and I say it again today: Hillsborough must be a watershed moment in this country—a point in history when the scales of justice are tipped firmly in favour of ordinary families fighting for loved ones.
That is what the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, or Hillsborough law, seeks to achieve. It is a powerful Bill proposed and supported by all of the Hillsborough families, and by the Hillsborough Family Support Group and the Hillsborough Justice Campaign. It has been developed with the help of their lawyers, and I pay particular tribute to Pete Weatherby, QC. As an aside, it happens to be the last Bill that will be prepared by Mr Glenn McKee from the Public Bill Office, who, after 34 years here, retires tomorrow. I am sure that colleagues on both sides of the House will join me in paying tribute to an exceptional servant to this House and to our democracy.
The Bill has formidable backing from other justice campaigns, including Inquest, from many in the legal profession, and from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Its aim is simple: to protect other families from going through what the Hillsborough families went through and from a similar miscarriage of justice. It empowers victims to secure disclosure of crucial information and prevent public authorities from lying to them or hiding the truth by making that an imprisonable offence. It empowers decent police officers and public servants to stand up to seniors trying to make them stick to a misleading corporate line, and it makes it an offence for such a line to be peddled to the media. Crucially, it creates a level legal playing field at inquests for bereaved families so that finally inquests become what they should always be—a vehicle to get to the truth.
After last year’s verdict the chair of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, Margaret Aspinall, came here to speak of her experience in the early 1990s. I do not think that anyone who was at that meeting will ever forget her talking of her pain when she was sent an  official letter with a cheque for £1,226.35, which was supposed to represent compensation for James’s life. She spoke of how she was forced to cash it against her will because she could not find the money to pay her £3,000 share of the families’ legal costs. She said:
“Making a mother, like myself, accept a pittance in order to fight a cause. The guilt of this has lived with me for the past 28 years.”
It would at least be something if we could say that would not happen today, but sadly we cannot. Since the Hillsborough verdict, the families of those who died in the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings have, quite wrongly and unbelievably, been made to beg for legal aid. There are thousands of other hidden individual cases in which bereaved families are denied legal representation while the public bodies they are up against in court spend public money like water, hiring the best QCs in the land. As cuts to legal aid bite, the problem just gets worse.
Zane Gbangbola was a boy of seven who died following a flood in his home in Surrey that occurred as part of the national floods in 2014. His parents, Kye and Nicole, strongly believe that the problem was caused by contaminated landfill. Scientists from Porton Down were called on site. The case was even discussed at Cobra. Despite that, the family were denied legal aid. They arrived at Zane’s inquest to find themselves up against a phalanx of top QCs and left feeling as though they had been put on trial. They are still fighting for answers today as to what happened to their child.
Then consider the experience of Des James, who courageously fought for years for a new inquest into the death of his daughter Cheryl at the Deepcut barracks in Surrey. When the case was finally re-heard, Mr James found himself accused by the QC acting for Surrey police of distracting the force from the Milly Dowler investigation—an accusation with no foundation.
“My wife and I were made to feel as though we were on trial and we felt as though our family was undermined at every opportunity”,
Mr James said after the verdict.
The brutal and uncomfortable truth is this: bereaved families are not just denied legal funding; they have their character questioned and denigrated by lawyers for public bodies. They are thrown into courtrooms, raw with grief, pitched into an adversarial battle and effectively put on trial. How much longer are we in this place going to let vast sums of public money be used to torment families in this way? If the state can cover up 96 deaths at a football match, should not we be concerned at what it might do to individuals?
The Hillsborough Family Support Group has asked me to say this to the House today: for the good of the nation, there should be a level playing field at inquests. The grief, pain and heartache is enough for families to deal with; they should not have to deal with money worries, nor beg for public funds to get to the truth. Its powerful call for equality of arms has authoritative support, including from the former chief coroner, Peter Thornton, QC.
I disagree with those who say that the Bill would add costs. The practical effect of clause 4 would be to create a new incentive on public bodies to limit their own legal  expenditure. By making them come clean at the outset, the Bill would cut the length of inquests and inquiries and thereby make considerable savings. It would promote good public administration and public confidence in the police. Most importantly, it would rebalance our legal system in favour of ordinary people. Until that happens, the true lesson of Hillsborough will not have been learned. What has disappointed me most in the last year is to see how things have reverted to business as usual. For the establishment, it seems as though Hillsborough was the one that got away, rather than the catalyst for change that it should have been. I say that with sadness, because I truly hoped that it would be the latter, but developments over the last year suggest otherwise.
Alongside the shoddy treatment of the Birmingham families, we had the refusal of an inquiry into Orgreave on the basis that nobody died. If that is now the Home Secretary’s benchmark for whether wrongdoing can be investigated, God help us all. Nobody died at Orgreave, it is true, but innocent people were wrongly and maliciously prosecuted, and the country should know how that came to be. Nobody died during the building workers’ dispute of the early ’70s, either, but it does not mean we should not be told the truth about the politically motivated Shrewsbury show trial, which I believe was a serious miscarriage of justice.
Then there is the treatment of victims of contaminated blood, which is arguably the gravest injustice of all. They have been led up to the top of the hill, only to be let down once again. As with Hillsborough, there is clear evidence of serious wrongdoing if only people care to look for it. I have seen evidence that people’s medical records were altered without their consent and false entries included. That is potentially a criminal matter. Next month, Mr Speaker, I hope to persuade you to allow me to use the Adjournment to present a dossier of such evidence. Just as amended police statements reopened Hillsborough, so I believe evidence of amended medical records must reopen the contaminated blood scandal. The fact that the victims remain in the darkest of wildernesses tells me that Hillsborough has not changed our country—yet. But I remain hopeful that it will.
If the Bill became law, it would be the right way for the House to make reparation and create a permanent legislative legacy for the 96 people who died on 15 April 1989. Last year, the Prime Minister asked the right reverend Bishop James Jones to conduct a review of the experience of the Hillsborough families. On behalf of the whole House, I thank the bishop again for his incredible service to those families and everyone affected by the tragedy, and respectfully ask him to consider adopting this Bill as part of his recommendations.
We like to talk of this country as a paragon of democracy and the rule of law, but I ask every Member of this House to think of the constituents they have met at their surgeries who have spent years fighting for justice, picture the lines on their faces and the black shadows beneath their eyes, and ask, “Is this country fair to people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves fighting for loved ones?” We all know the answer: no. The fight is too hard, it takes too great a toll and it grinds people down. This is not a country of justice, as we like to claim.
There is a possibility that I may not be around in the House long enough to see this Bill become law, but I have enough faith in the decency and humanity of colleagues from all parts of the House to be confident that one day it will. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Andy Burnham, Steve Rotheram, Maria Eagle, Derek Twigg, Alison McGovern, Bill Esterson, Sir Peter Bottomley, Tim Farron, Jess Phillips, Mark Durkan, Chris Stephens and Caroline Lucas present the Bill.
Andy Burnham accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 May, and to be printed (Bill 163).

PERSONAL INDEPENDENCE PAYMENT: REGULATIONS

Emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

Debbie Abrahams: I beg to move,
That this House has considered changes to Personal Independence Payment Regulations.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this vital debate on the new personal independence payment regulations. Although I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue, it is highly regrettable that the Government have had to be dragged to the House to be held to account for this nasty piece of secondary legislation.
As the House will know, the Government have ignored two urgent questions on this matter, an early-day motion signed by 179 Members calling for these punitive regulations to be annulled, and a 38 Degrees petition, signed by more than 185,000 people, asking them not to make the changes. When pushed at business questions on Thursday, the Leader of the House said there would be a debate, but could not say when. Only late last night did it become clear that the debate has now been hastily scheduled for 19 April. What particular kind of arrogance or disregard for democracy are the Government revealing? This does not bode well for their accountability to this place in the future negotiations.
For the record, we should note that today’s debate does not allow for a substantive vote on the regulations. As the Government have failed to allow a debate before the EDM praying-against period comes to an end on 3 April, the regulations will not be automatically revoked, should the House vote against them on 19 April. I would be grateful to the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work if she explained why, given that we have risen early twice this week, the Government have been incapable of finding time for such a debate before the Easter recess. The Government are hoping that because they have delayed the debate, the objection to the regulations will be kicked into the long grass, but it will not be.

Toby Perkins: On behalf of many of my constituents, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does she agree that the very least we owe to people who find themselves, through no fault of their own, in the most difficult of circumstances is to tell them whether we have voted for decisions made in Parliament that are having an appalling impact on their incomes?

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is what we have been trying to do since the emergency regulations were laid before Parliament.
Let us remind ourselves how the emergency regulations were introduced and what they have changed. The regulations, which were laid before the House on 23 February and came into force two weeks ago, amended the legislation under which disabled people or people with a chronic condition are assessed for eligibility for personal independence payments. The new regulations followed two upper tribunal rulings. The first judgment on 28 November 2016 held that needing support to take medication and monitor a health condition should be  scored in the same way as needing support to manage therapy, such as dialysis, undertaken at home. The second, also on 28 November, ruled that people who find it difficult to leave their house because of severe psychological distress should receive the enhanced rate of support under the mobility component of PIP.
In a letter to me last week, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that he became aware of the rulings on 8 December. Two and a half months later, the Government laid their emergency legislation before Parliament. I am sure that the irony of something taking two and a half months in an “emergency” has not been lost on you, Mr Speaker. During those two and a half months, not only were the Government unable to bring the regulations before the House, but they also bypassed their own Social Security Advisory Committee. They have ignored SSAC’s recommendations on wider engagement, testing or piloting changes, and the analysis of impacts.

Ranil Jayawardena: I note what the hon. Lady says about legal cases, but is not the point that those legal cases broadened the provisions, and that the regulations will simply restore the policy to what it has been and should be, which is one of targeting support at those who need it most?

Debbie Abrahams: I will come on to that in a moment, because I think Members have unfortunately been hoodwinked, and I will absolutely expose what the Government have said.
This move undermines and subverts not just our democracy, but independent tribunal judgments. It is unprecedented, and we should be concerned about future actions that the Government may take in relation to court cases that they lose. It is also highly unusual for such a fundamental change to be introduced by a statutory instrument under the negative procedure, bypassing debate and scrutiny in this House.

Catherine McKinnell: It is clear to me, from the huge number of cases that I have dealt with, that the entire PIP system is fundamentally flawed. It results in the most appalling decisions and causes distress to thousands of disabled people and their families. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be an independent review of how PIP assessments are carried out, given the obvious failings in the system?

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are long-term issues with the PIP assessment process as a whole. I will address that later. It is interesting that the Government let out yesterday that they will make an announcement, following a recent review, tomorrow, just as we rise for recess.
On Monday, the other place debated and passed a regret motion tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock, asking the Government to reconsider the regulations urgently, but the elected House of Commons has been denied that opportunity during the vital praying-against period. As I have said, that is very worrying behaviour by the Government.
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work claims that the changes restore PIP to its original policy intentions, but that does not hold water. During the PIP consultation in 2012, Ministers were quoted on numerous occasions saying that mental health conditions would be given parity with physical health conditions as part of the PIP assessment. For example, Esther McVey said that the PIP
“assessment is being designed to consider…physical, sensory, mental, intellectual and cognitive impairments.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 147W.]

Madeleine Moon: The Samaritans produced a report earlier this year that points to a significant association between socioeconomic disadvantage and suicidal behaviour. The report cites Gunnell and Chang, who wrote:
“Those who are already vulnerable, such as individuals who are supported by social welfare or who have preexisting mental health problems are at greatest risk.”Is not it shocking that the Government have not looked at the risk of suicide among those who will be denied financial support for their mental health needs?

Debbie Abrahams: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) has given a very moving account of how one of her constituents was affected and, unfortunately, took their own life last week.

Helen Goodman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government seem to be in a place where the NHS is catching up with the need to treat mental health conditions properly, but other public services, whether they be the Department for Work and Pensions or the Prison Service, are simply stuck in the past, and that this must change?

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The situation makes an absolute mockery of the claim that there is parity of esteem. She rightly mentions what the NHS is trying to do, but sadly there are still issues with treatment for mental health conditions.

Ranil Jayawardena: rose—

Debbie Abrahams: I will make some progress, and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.
The Government’s response to the PIP consultation reiterated that psychological distress would be included in the PIP assessment, as did the Government’s argument in the 2015 upper tribunal case of HL v. the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Ministers have also said that people with mental health disorders who suffer psychological distress would not lose out on PIP. However, the new guidelines for PIP assessors, issued on 16 March, state:
“Descriptors c, d and f under new mobility activity 1 are amended”,
and the
“effects of psychological distress are not relevant”.
The assessment cannot take into account the psychological distress that someone experiences. They cannot score the 12 points needed to get the enhanced PIP mobility rate, so instead of £57 a week, they will be able to get only £22 a week.

Stephen Kinnock: In recent months, I have had 44 PIP cases in my constituency, with dozens going to appeal. Eight have already gone to appeal, and in every single one of those cases, the decision has been overturned. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a massive and inexcusable waste of time, money and resources?

Debbie Abrahams: Absolutely. It is very important to note the association between ill health and disability in former industrial areas, and as my hon. Friend rightly says, the impact of assessments that cannot be done right first time. Why is that? Why have the Government not been able to get assessments right first time?

Andrew Stephenson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Debbie Abrahams: If the hon. Gentleman will give me just two minutes, I will make a little bit more progress and come back to him.
Someone who experiences psychological distress because of a mental health condition can score a maximum of 10 points under “planning and following a journey”, unless they also have a cognitive, sensory or physical impairment. That falls short of the 12 points needed to qualify for the higher rate of the mobility component. In the 2016 case of MH v. the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the upper tribunal ruled that psychological distress by itself cannot satisfy descriptors under activity two unless the psychological distress causes a change in someone’s physical condition. It is therefore the regulations, not the tribunal rulings, that undermine the intention of the primary legislation by restricting the number of people whose mobility is severely limited by their mental health condition who are able to qualify for the enhanced mobility rate of PIP.

Andrew Stephenson: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. It is very important that we get the regulations right, but does the shadow Minister accept that more people with mental health conditions qualify for support under PIP than under the old disability living allowance regulations?

Debbie Abrahams: No, I certainly do not agree with that at all. I will come on to this in a moment, but the mental health charity Mind has produced data, based on the Government’s own statistics, that show that 55% of DLA claimants with a mental health condition will receive either nothing or a reduced amount when they transfer to PIP. I am afraid this is another fallacy from the Government.

Ranil Jayawardena: The hon. Lady might have suggested that Government Members are being hoodwinked, but I am sure that she was not suggesting that the Minister plays with anything other than a straight bat. The fact is that over a quarter of those on PIP receive the highest level of support, which is much more than the 15% of DLA working-age claimants who did so. Are the regulations not doing exactly what was originally intended: targeting resources at those who need them most?

Debbie Abrahams: I am sorry, but I do not see the hon. Gentleman’s logic. [Interruption.] Well, it does not make sense. I will come on to that in a bit more detail, because we must dispel the fallacies that the Government have come out with in the past few weeks.

Kevan Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Bercow: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, I point out that there are 10 other Members who wish to make speeches in the debate, including the Minister who will wind up. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) is being very generous, not only with her own time, but with time that would otherwise be available to others. I know she will want to tailor her contribution accordingly.

Kevan Jones: I advise my hon. Friend not to put much credence in planted Whips’ questions from Tory Back Benchers. Another element of concern relates to people whose mental health condition worsens when they have a failed assessment. In some cases, they end up going into hospital, which is another cost for the NHS.

Debbie Abrahams: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is such a relevant point, which, again, has not been factored into the Government’s silo approach.
The third justification the Government have used for bringing in the new regulations is that PIP is much more generous to people with mental health conditions—we have just been talking about that. The mental health charity Mind completely refutes that. Its data, based on Department for Work and Pensions statistics, reveal that 55% of people with mental health conditions previously supported by DLA get either reduced or no awards when they transfer to PIP. Indeed, the Government’s own data, when appropriately weighted, show that only 12% of people with a mental health disorder and another condition are on the enhanced mobility award.
These new regulations are nothing more than a shameful cut. Once again, this Government are trying to balance the books on the backs of the sick and disabled. The Government’s own analysis estimates that the new regulations will affect more than 160,000 people by 2023, the majority of whom will have mental health conditions. Many of these will be newer applicants, but the regulations will also affect those who are being reassessed, who will not be eligible for the full support to which they would have been entitled under the rulings of tribunals—an effective cut of £3.7 billion.
PIP helps disabled people to fund their living costs and, in particular, the additional costs that they face because of their condition. The disability charity Scope has estimated that these additional costs amount to approximately £550 a month, and are the key reason why disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people. For someone who might not be able to leave their home on their own, PIP would help with extra heating costs, or might pay for someone to assist them when they have to travel to medical appointments, for example. PIP is a vital source of income to prevent real hardship, yet to the shame of this Government, people are being denied this support.

Rachael Maskell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Debbie Abrahams: Yes, but for the last time.

Rachael Maskell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the ability to receive PIP funding can often be part of someone’s rehabilitation, helping them from their homes back into the workplace?

Debbie Abrahams: Absolutely, and I know that my hon. Friend has first-hand experience of that in a professional capacity.
I have been contacted by so many people telling me their stories of living with a severe mental health problem and how it affects them, including men and women from the armed and emergency services, so I would like to share Bob’s story. Bob started off in the police service in Liverpool, and then went into the Prison Service. After 20 years or so, he said he started to experience the need to escape from the cells and inmates by locking himself in the rest room for a few minutes. Over the years, this graduated to cluster headaches and then full-blown anxiety and panic attacks.
After a period of sick leave, Bob left the service, but the attacks continued and he eventually sought psychiatric treatment; he was then declared disabled by virtue of his debilitating anxiety attacks. The degree of disability fluctuated, but it was so severe at times that he would literally run from a shopping centre into his car, just to feel safe. Bob said that he wanted to work, but when he went for a job interview, he had an attack in the car, and by the time he got home, he could barely function at all: he was hyperventilating and completely unable to move. It is people such as Bob who will be denied support through these new regulations.
These changes to PIP have come on top of significant cuts to our social security system, with support for disabled people being particularly targeted. Scope has estimated that the Welfare Reform Act 2012 alone will have meant nearly £30 billion in cuts to support for 3.7 million disabled people. Next week, as we have heard, another £30 a week will be cut from disabled people who are found not fit for work in the employment and support allowance work-related activity group, and for those on universal credit’s limited capability for work component.
The disabled community are tired of this Government’s rhetoric; they want and need to be treated with dignity, not plunged further into poverty, yet plenty of new evidence shows that that is exactly what has happened since 2010. Will the Minister publish a cumulative impact assessment of all tax and social security changes, showing the impacts that they have had, and will continue to have, on disabled people?
For some time now, there has been growing concern about the way in which PIP is working. Wider systemic issues with PIP mean that 65% of those who appeal to a tribunal succeed. Over a quarter of all PIP assessments are challenged and referred for mandatory reconsideration, with the majority of the decisions being changed. Why can we not get these assessments right first time? More than 750 people a week are losing their Motability cars because of changes to entitlement when they move on to PIP. This is so counterproductive, because it makes it nigh-on impossible for so many disabled people to work, let alone live independently.
We should never forget that nine out of 10 disabilities are acquired; this could happen to any one of us. That is what our social security system is for—to provide support to any one of us in our time of need. Labour will stand with disabled people, who have already borne the brunt of seven years of austerity, in fighting this injustice. I do not believe that, given the choice, the British public would chose cuts in corporation tax over preventing disabled people from being pushed into destitution or worse.
It is exactly a week since the horrendous attack in Westminster, when four people, including our colleague PC Keith Palmer, were murdered, and 50 were injured. The following day, the Prime Minister rightly said that she was looking
“at what further support can be made available for victims in a wider sense, because there will be people who were not physically injured in the attack…but…for whom there may be other scars. It is important to provide that support.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 942.]
However, because of the new regulations, support for people suffering psychological distress is being restricted. Warm words need to be backed up by action. Let there be no more cuts in support for disabled people. Enough is enough.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. May I very politely suggest to the House that, although we will not at this stage have a formal time limit on Back-Bench speeches, if each Back-Bench contributor feels able to confine himself or herself to five or six minutes or thereabouts, everyone will get in? We will start with the sage from Swindon: Mr Justin Tomlinson.

Justin Tomlinson: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Having spent 14 very happy months as the Minister responsible for these matters, I want to pass on some of the observations that I made during that time.
Let me make it absolutely clear that stakeholders and charities recognise that PIP is a better benefit than DLA. It is not perfect—much more work is still to be done to deliver further improvements—but the statistics show why it is better. Under DLA, only 16.5% of all claimants access the highest rate of benefit; under PIP, the figure is over 25%. PIP is better, in particular, at identifying those with hidden impairments, including mental health conditions. Under DLA, only 22% of claimants with mental health conditions access the higher rate of benefit, whereas the figure is about 66% under PIP. Improvements under this benefit mean that the Government have spent an additional £3 billion a year—about 6% of such spending—supporting those with long-term health conditions and disabilities.
In all the debates about this matter that I have attended, people have understandably said that a 65% success rate on appeal must mean that the quality of the assessments is not good enough. We must establish what is going wrong. Most successful appeals succeed because of additional evidence that has been submitted late, and that is one of the things that we need to improve.

Catherine West: If the system is so good, why do people need to come and see us? In my office, we have almost a 100% success rate when it comes to securing what people are entitled to without any intervention from any of us.

Justin Tomlinson: When a claimant comes to speak to any of us, as their Member of Parliament, presumably we talk to them about the respects in which they feel the decision was not right. When claimants receive a letter that says that they will not receive the benefit for which they were hoping, that letter spells out why that is, which normally triggers an assumption by claimants  that their particular challenge has not been considered. A claimant will then submit additional late evidence, the claim will be looked at again and a different decision may be reached, but that does not mean that the original decision was wrong on the basis of the facts that were originally presented.
I am keen to find a way in which assessors can automatically access claimants’ medical records, with their consent. Many people have to fill in a 50-page form in which they must specify their challenges, and they sometimes under-egg those challenges.

Kevan Jones: I know that the hon. Gentleman has been a Work and Pensions Minister, but he is just wrong. In my experience of constituency cases, the assessors do not consider some of the evidence, even when people take it along with them. When I have intervened and asked why that is, the cases have been overturned. I am sorry, but the system is not working.

Justin Tomlinson: I am not wrong. I said that the vast majority of successful appeals were due to the late submission of additional evidence. That is a fact.

Tracy Brabin: rose—

Justin Tomlinson: I will give way once more, but I am conscious of the time.

Tracy Brabin: People in my constituency are taking deckchairs to their citizens advice bureau at 5 or 6 in the morning in order to queue outside. Is not that yet another addition to their stress and the pressure they face, and should it not be made clearer that people can have the assessments that they need?

Justin Tomlinson: I am trying to explain what we can do to help to improve the situation, because there are cases in which there are mistakes—1.5 million people are going through the PIP process. However, we know that the PIP process is far better than that for DLA because we are spending £3 billion more, and because of the success rate in getting those with the biggest challenges on to the highest rate of benefit—the proof is in the pudding.
This debate has arisen because a legal judgment has suggested that there are certain areas in which additional money should be spent. As I argued when we considered this during proceedings on an urgent question, if we are to spend money to make further improvements, that needs to be done in a co-ordinated manner, not an ad-hoc way.
Let me set out how this would work. We have lots of impressive charities with great policy teams, and they lobby on the basis of the experiences of their users. Individual MPs also raise concerns and suggestions for improvement through debates in the Chamber and Westminster Hall, and by tabling parliamentary questions, and the policy teams then work through them. There have already been significant changes, such as the much-needed and very welcome changes for terminally ill claimants, and the fact that waiting times rightly improved after a very difficult start when PIP was first rolled out. Rightly, this transfer of 1.5 million people from DLA to PIP is now being done at a speed that will not compromise waiting times as people go through the process. If this takes longer, it takes longer, and that means that we do not make the mistakes of the initial roll-out. The quality  of the assessments is also improving month on month. There are still lots more areas in which issues will arise, but I spent a lot of time meeting charities, particularly smaller ones representing people with less common conditions. They would then spend time helping to train the assessors and rewriting the manual so that those conditions would be picked up in the assessment, so learning from such experiences forms part of the process.
The timings of when people should come back for reassessment have been looked at for the first time. Under the old DLA system, 70% of claimants were on a lifetime award. The problem with that was that one in three claimants’ conditions would change significantly within 12 months, meaning that they should have been on a different benefit. The vast majority of those claimants’ conditions were getting worse, not better, so they would have been entitled to a higher rate of benefit, but many people simply did not phone up and ask to present themselves for reassessment, so they missed out on the benefits they should have received.
Under the PIP assessment, if someone has entered on a lower rate of benefit and the assessor can see that their condition is likely to get worse, meaning that they will need to access a higher rate of benefit, an estimate is automatically made of when that might happen, which triggers a reassessment. That process means that those who are most in need will get money in the best possible time.

Stephen McPartland: I do not always agree with the Government on welfare, but I do believe that the assessments have been improving. My concern is that the situation surrounding the 50-page application form, with which people are struggling, is not improving. People’s access to assessments—they can be put in taxis for up to an hour—is also a growing problem.

Justin Tomlinson: My hon. Friend was one of the greatest advocates of change, and I had many constructive and challenging meetings with him as he brought forward suggestions. The point is that we have to look at this in a co-ordinated manner. Further improvements can be made to the initial application form and the way in which some of the descriptors are applied. The Government are also considering allowing assessments to be recorded automatically so that they can then be used in an appeal. That would benefit both the assessors and the claimants, who have been asking for this.

Heidi Allen: I broadly agree with what I am hearing—PIP is a work in progress and the process needs to get better—and I could give 100 stories of my experience of sitting through the PIP process to show where it is going wrong.
I agree that gradual change is a great thing, but the courts have given us a loud and clear message that we have got it wrong on mental health. In this age where we are desperately trying to change society’s views of mental health and parity of esteem, we have to listen to the courts—they have given us a judgment for a reason.

Justin Tomlinson: I understand that point, and there might well need to be further improvements in that particular area, but they have to be made in a co-ordinated manner, not an ad hoc way. PIP is not about a condition; it is about the challenges that individuals face in their everyday lives.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Justin Tomlinson: I will not give way because other people wish to speak.
If additional money is to be spent, it should go into the court system to speed up the appeals process, which would be helpful. There is a particular problem for those who could lose their Motability car before their appeal is heard. As I said, there should also be automatic access to medical records, which should be shared between ESA and PIP assessments when possible. Those assessments are often similar, so that would make the claimant’s life a lot easier.
We need to do more to signpost additional help. The Government are spending £11.4 billion more to support people with mental health conditions. The biggest challenge is often identifying people with such conditions so that they can be given support, but PIP is good at identifying them. We should be offering them additional support and saying, “If you would like them, these are the sorts of services that are available in this local area that you can take advantage of.”
I urge the Minister to continue to improve the situation and to work with the policy teams. I spoke to people from Macmillan yesterday, and they are grateful that they are able to continue to access senior Ministers to discuss suggestions. We have some brilliant stakeholders and really knowledgeable charities and policy teams. Let them help to shape where these further improvements will happen.

Corri Wilson: It is a relief that we are having this debate on the Floor of the House, and I thank you for granting it, Mr Speaker, following the application of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). It is a shame that the House has had to drag a Minister to the Dispatch Box so that the Government can be held to account on this matter after weeks of their refusing to debate it. As we have heard, 179 Members from eight different parties signed an early-day motion to annul the statutory instrument that implements the changes. The truth is that the Government have been shying away from accountability for the regulations from the start. They initially refused to comply with the upper tribunal ruling by bringing forward these changes in the first place, and then they did not even have the decency, nor the courtesy, to refer a draft of the regulations to their own Social Security Advisory Committee. If the Government are so confident that the regulations will hold up to any kind of scrutiny, why have they avoided due process by trying to sneak the changes in through the back door?
My party and other Opposition colleagues will not allow the Government to take these unfair backwards steps. Sense estimates that the changes will affect 150,000 people. Those people will lose out on PIP, which supports the extra cost of living with a disability, while the Government save £3.7 billion. That smacks of hypocrisy, given that the “Work, health and disability” Green Paper said that the Government would not seek to make any further cuts to the social security budget. Is that the real reason why they did not want the regulations to be scrutinised?
Given the Government’s attitude to PIP and the assessments, it seems fitting that they will sneak out the second independent review of personal independence payments tomorrow—the day the House rises for Easter recess. What are they so scared of that they have scheduled the release of the report so that they can face no immediate scrutiny? During the passage of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, which established the new personal independence payment system, Ministers were clear that PIP was an important step to achieve the parity of esteem between physical and mental health that we want. Ministers even talked about the descriptors for the mobility component taking into account someone’s ability to plan and follow a journey. They said that PIP was designed to assess the barriers that individuals face, not to make judgments based on the type of impairment. Personal independence payments are supposed to support people with the additional costs of disability.
We have heard about the court ruling that the regulations seek to undermine. The court ruled that people who find it hard to leave the house because of anxiety, panic attacks and other mental health problems should be able to receive the higher rate of PIP.

Norman Lamb: These changes run the risk of again increasing the stigma of mental health, because they say to people with anxiety that causes them to stay inside that that is not really serious. Is that not completely in conflict with the principle of equal treatment for mental and physical health?

Corri Wilson: I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We should not be treating one disability differently from another.
I have said this before, but it bears repeating that the Government cannot simply move the goalposts every time they lose a battle in court. The regulations do nothing more than pander to the old stigmas and attitudes towards mental illness. If a person needs help, he or she needs that help regardless of the nature of their disability or health condition.
In evidence to the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Disability Agenda Scotland, an alliance of Scotland’s major disability organisations, raised a number of concerns. It said:
“We disagree with the Government’s presentation of the change that this will not be a ‘cut’ for people currently receiving PIP, as it is a clear diversion from the stated aims of the legislation back in 2012 (to award the enhanced mobility component ‘if a person’s mobility is severely limited by their physical or mental condition’).”
Essentially, the Government are intent on trying to spin their way out of this outrageous, stigmatising move against those with severe mental health conditions. Disability Agenda Scotland also fears:
“Current recipients may also lose out in future despite no change to their condition, if they are reassessed under the new criteria.”
It will come as no shock that the DWP’s own evaluation of the changes shows that the Government have no idea of their long-term impact—no idea! They simply do not care and are happy to push forward a move that makes a clear distinction between people with different conditions, against the ruling of the Court.
There are clearly concerns about assessment processes for personal independence payment, and the Scottish Association for Mental Health’s report on PIP, “What’s  the Problem?”, sets out those concerns. One of the main themes running through its research is a distrust of the process. One person said:
“People advise you not to shave, and turn up dishevelled—to show that mentally they are unwell! Just because you’re articulate doesn’t mean you don’t have a mental health problem.”
There is simply no consistency in the assessment process, yet the Government keep shifting the sands in a piecemeal way, which only exacerbates the problem and the impact on the lives of those who are simply trying to claim what they are entitled to.
The Government have form on pulling the safety net from under those who are desperately or life-threateningly ill. Such is the impact of sanctions on those with mental health conditions that many become destitute and dependent on food banks. The Government do not strike me as keen to ensure parity of esteem for those with mental health conditions; they seem intent on doing everything they can to make people dependent on support, rather than empowering people to live independent lives. We know that, in practice, “parity of esteem” means nothing to the Government, who have instructed private companies carrying out assessments to award the higher rate of the mobility component only to people with physical, cognitive or sensory impairments.
The Scottish Government, on the other hand, are determined to build a social security system with dignity and fairness at its heart. The process of building that system and taking over responsibility for personal independence payments is ongoing.

Rupa Huq: The hon. Lady describes the situation in Scotland, but I assure her that seats such as mine are also affected. People might call Ealing Central and Acton metropolitan, elitist or suburban, but we have had 120 such cases recently. She talks about parity of esteem, and people keep pointing out to me that that is another example of how this Government say one thing and do another.

Corri Wilson: I agree with the hon. Lady. I am sure that most of us in the Chamber will have had constituents queuing at our door with personal independence payment issues.
I hope that lessons can be learned from today’s debate. The Government should stop forcing important legislation through the back door. They should have consulted their own Social Security Advisory Committee, and they should not have had to be dragged to the Dispatch Box for an emergency debate because they simply did not give the House answers.
The Government have not even waited on the second independent review of personal independence payments before manipulating the system. The Minister needs to stop mucking people about, back away from these ill judged and ill thought out changes and call a vote on annulling the regulations. If the Government do not do so, it will show how intent they are on bulldozing through legislation without scrutiny, and in spite of an independent judicial ruling.
The bottom line is that these changes are being implemented to save the Government money, no matter the cost to our communities and those with mental health conditions. This is no way to treat our vulnerable people in society, and I ask the Government to reconsider.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I please ask hon. Members now to stick to five minutes each, otherwise either a Member who wants to speak will not get in, or there will not be time for a proper ministerial response, about which hon. Members would understandably, but too late, be the first to complain.

Nusrat Ghani: It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. I appreciate the concerns set out by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), but the bigger picture is clear: the Government spend £50 billion a year to support people with disabilities and health conditions, which is an increase of £7 billion since 2010. The Government moved away from DLA to PIP on the basis that support should be given to those experiencing the greatest barriers to living independently. PIP supports people according to their overall level of need—not on the basis of a specific medical condition, but based on how their freedom to live independently is impaired. That is the right approach.
I chair the all-party group on eye health and visual impairment. Yesterday, I led a Westminster Hall debate on preventing avoidable sight loss, but of course in many cases sight loss is unavoidable. How we support those with limited ability to live independently is important. Sight loss affects nearly 2 million people in the UK, and the huge personal challenges and hurdles that people with sight loss have to overcome to live independently can never be underestimated. Through my work with the all-party group, I have seen at first hand the Government’s commitment to helping people dealing with sight loss.
Last year, the then Minister for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who is now the International Development Secretary, facilitated a meeting with her team about support to help blind and partially sighted people. We hope my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work will meet us soon to discuss how PIP can best support people with sight loss, and I am grateful to her and to Department for Work and Pensions Ministers for their focus on this important issue. I am sure that she will agree that the Royal National Institute of Blind People does commendable work, and I urge people who are blind or partially sighted to contact the RNIB, which has created an RNIB toolkit for completing the PIP form effectively—both for the mobility part and the daily living component.
I wish to share with the House the personal experiences of PIP which have been collated by the RNIB and are available on its website.

Heidi Allen: rose—

Nusrat Ghani: I am sorry, but there just is not enough time to give way.
Research and evidence was gathered by the Thomas Pocklington Trust, Sense and the RNIB, and the key finding of the study, which reflected real-life experiences of people with sensory loss and visual impairment, is that those participants who transitioned from DLA to PIP received a “positive” financial outcome with PIP. However, I hope the Minister will reflect on the feedback on the process, which some found confusing. Assessors need always to work to deliver a positive experience at  face-to-face assessments. Regardless, the evidence from this study, available on the RNIB website, shows that switching from DLA to PIP meant a more positive financial outcome, and that is welcome.
Opposition Members have accused the Government of betraying people with mental health conditions, but we are spending £11.4 billion on mental health this year alone, and more people with mental health conditions are receiving the enhanced PIP daily living and mobility rates than were previously getting the equivalent under the DLA system.

Norman Lamb: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Nusrat Ghani: There just is not enough time for everyone to get in. Some 66% of people getting PIP with a mental health condition get the enhanced daily living amount, which compares with 22% who were receiving the highest rate of DLA.
I will finish by focusing on this Government’s record on helping disabled people into work. Since 2013, the number of disabled people in work has increased by half a million. However, those with sight loss are at the bottom of the table, and I hope we can do more to ensure that they get—

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Lady is making a good speech, and she makes some valuable points about PIP, but it has got nothing to do with the regulation we are talking about today.

John Bercow: The Chair has to make a judgment about pertinence and at this stage I am content with my own judgment. If the hon. Gentleman is not, I shall do my best to bear that burden with such stoicism and fortitude as I am able to muster.

Nusrat Ghani: We have heard experiences of where PIP is not working, but I wanted to share experiences of where it is working, as it is important to hear them, too. The point I was trying to make is that we have got many more people with disabilities going back into work, but I want to make sure that we campaign hard for those who have sight loss to ensure that they have those opportunities, too. Half a million more people are benefiting from opportunities to secure work. We have half a million more people who can support families and loved ones; half a million more people are supporting themselves, their communities and the economy. I thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth for giving us the opportunity to reflect on that and, no doubt, welcome those figures as well.

Stephen Timms: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing this debate and on the important case she made from the Dispatch Box.
I wish to challenge some of the assertions the Secretary of State has made in commenting on the changes in the regulations since they were announced. I have no doubt that his comments were made in good faith, but I think they were incorrect. In particular, the changes do not restore the original intention of the benefit. The Secretary of State suggested that the changes are not a cut, but  they obviously are, and they affect a substantial number of people. The equality analysis produced by the Department tells us that of the current case load, 143,000 people would have had their mobility award reduced to zero had it been made under the new regulations, and that a further 21,000 would have had their payment reduced. This is not, therefore, a minor or insignificant cut; it is a substantial cut that will affect a large number of people.
Table 6 in the equality assessment is titled, “Conditions most likely affected by reversing effect of UT”—upper tribunal—“judgment on mobility activity 1”, and the list includes schizophrenia, learning disability, autism, cognitive disorder due to stroke, dementia and post-traumatic stress disorder. According to the Government, those are the people most affected.

Karl Turner: My right hon. Friend clearly knows something about the new regulations, and I do, too. The reality is that those with psychological illness cannot now qualify for enhanced mobility payments because activity 11e attracts only a maximum of 10 points. Twelve points are needed to allow mobility payments, so this is clearly a cut and the Government should just fess up.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is right.
I wish to say a little more about the precise content of the regulations. The Secretary of State told us at the beginning that nobody would have their current benefit cut; I think Ministers now accept that that statement was incorrect. Paragraph (4) of the regulations says:
“In the table in Part 3 (mobility activities), in relation to activity 1 (planning and following journeys), in descriptors c, d and f, for ‘Cannot’ substitute ‘For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot’.”
The changes explicitly carve out people who cannot plan and follow a journey because of psychological distress.
The Secretary of State has said not to worry, because people with cognitive impairments can still qualify for the highest rate of the mobility component. That may well be the case, but that is a different group of people. The changes explicitly carve out people whose mobility impairment arises from psychological distress. Was that the original intention? On 7 February 2012, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller)—if I remember rightly, she was the predecessor but two of the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson)—said in a written answer that
“when considering entitlement to both rates of the mobility component we will take into account ability to plan and follow a journey, in addition to physical ability to get around. Importantly, PIP is designed to assess barriers individuals face, not make a judgment based on their impairment type.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 232W.]
That is a clear statement of the original intent of this benefit. If the Secretary of State has been advised that the original intention was something different, he simply needs to check the record.
The changes in the regulations are different from the original intention. They introduce an explicit judgment based on impairment type; the original intention was to have no such distinction. The regulations introduce a distinction that was not in the benefit’s original intention. They say that someone is in if they struggle to plan and follow a journey, but if their problem is because of  psychological distress, they are out. It is an explicit judgment, it is explicitly contingent, and it carves out a large group of people with mental health problems.

Norman Lamb: Does not that carve-out ultimately amount to nothing but discrimination against people suffering mental distress? Also, is it not the case that any references to spend on mental health in any other area are totally irrelevant to this issue? This rule change is about discrimination.

Stephen Timms: That is absolutely explicit in the regulations. That group is now being discriminated against, which is contrary to the original intention. The Secretary of State talked about restoring the original aim of the policy, but the change does not do that; it is different.
The Secretary of State suggests that it was never the intention to include this group of people with mental health problems, but his predecessors told the House, in terms, that it was the intention to include people irrespective of their impairment type. That was the intention of Ministers in 2012, but these regulations will thwart it. I hope that, like the other place, we will say no to these changes.

Graham Evans: It was a privilege to serve on the Work and Pensions Committee with the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) in the last Parliament.
I wish to focus my speech on two particular areas. First, it is not the case that the Government are using the change as a cost-cutting exercise. Secondly, I will address some of the comments made by Opposition Members on mental health and physical conditions in relation to PIP.
We spend £50 billion every year on benefits—up by £7 billion since 2010—to support people with disabilities and health conditions, so, rather than being subjected to austerity cuts, these benefits have seen an increase in Government spending. That figure is 6% of all Government spending, or 2.5% of GDP. It is significantly more than countries such as France and Germany spend, and higher than the OECD average. It is more than we spend on the defence of the realm.
As I have said, this change is not, as some Members have suggested, a cost-cutting exercise. The Government have made it abundantly clear that they will seek no further savings through welfare in this Parliament. I ask my hon. Friend, the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, to reassure the House that she will continue to defend the disability budget.
The changes restore the original aim of the policy by clarifying the assessment criteria to make sure that support is targeted on those who need it the most. Nobody will receive less money than they have previously been awarded. This is not about making savings. PIP was widely consulted and voted on and debated in this House during the coalition Government.

Kate Green: rose—

Graham Evans: I am sorry, but I really want to make some progress so that other Members can have their say.
More than two thirds of PIP recipients with a mental health condition receive the enhanced daily living component, compared with just 22% who used to receive  the higher rate under the disability living allowance. This Government are investing more in mental health support than any other before them. The figure stands at £11.4 billion this year.
Parity between mental and physical conditions is a core principle at the heart of PIP’s design. Awards are dependent on the claimant’s overall level of need, regardless of whether the condition is mental or physical.
As well as increasing spending on disabilities, this Government are challenging attitudes towards disability through initiatives such as Disability Confident. Last year, I, along with many Members of this House, held my first Disability Confident fair, bringing together 20 local businesses and support agencies to hear at first hand the benefits of employing people with disabilities.

Norman Lamb: The hon. Gentleman says that parity of esteem applies to the way in which PIP works, but the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has specifically explained how the carve-out of mental distress means that it is clearly discriminatory. Does he not agree with that?

Graham Evans: I cannot comment on the specific case to which the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) referred. All I would say is that it does vary from case to case, and we can all give examples. In my experience, these changes to PIP have, overwhelmingly, been better for people with mental illness in my constituency.

Victoria Borwick: I also have a number of local residents concerned about those with mental health issues having access to the higher rate mobility allowance. I think that it has had the unintended consequence—this is where I seek my hon. Friend’s advice—of young people, post-transition, not necessarily being able to still have access to their blue badge or disability or mobility access.

Graham Evans: That is for the Minister to answer.
The Disability Confident fair brought together employers in Weaver Vale and those with disabilities and mental health issues and I encourage Members to consider doing something similar. I learned a lot about the challenges facing my constituents and the fair helped to bring employers and those with disabilities together. This Government have done a lot more to ensure that our welfare system is a strong safety net for those who need it. PIP is a more modern, dynamic and fair benefit than its predecessor, DLA, focusing vital support on those in our constituencies who need it the most.

Stephen Twigg: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing the debate and reaffirm her points about how disappointing it is that the Government did not find time for a debate and a vote on these regulations before they come into force. I would say to the Government that it does not reflect well on this House and on the Government as regards public trust on our proceedings if we do not conduct these debates and votes before such significant regulations come into force.
As others have said, we know that disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people. PIP helps to level the financial playing field between disabled and non-disabled people. I represent a constituency with a significant level of poverty where 3,410 people are in receipt of PIP. We have all received representations from a range of third sector organisations about this assessment process and we have all seen, as I have in my constituency, the impact of how the assessment process works.
I want to highlight two organisations I work with. One is the Motor Neurone Disease Association, and I am pleased to be patron of its Merseyside branch. Its analysis shows that over the three years from 2013 to 2016, the proportion of people with MND who saw their award reduced as they moved from DLA to PIP was 13%. This is a condition that by its nature is both progressive and terminal. When I spoke to the MNDA this morning, I was told that the organisation wanted me to raise the quality of assessments in the debate because it believes that the poor quality of assessments has contributed to the issues mentioned today.

Heidi Allen: On that point, one thing that has struck me when I have been through PIP assessments—either mock assessments or those that I have observed with a constituent—is the generalist nature of the assessors. They are expected to be experts in mental health, physical health and mobility, and it is just not possible, in my view. I think that there needs to be triaging.

Stephen Twigg: That is borne out by the experience in my local office. The Disability Benefits Consortium research suggested that 71% of respondents said that assessors had not sought any evidence or information about the specific condition, and I think that that is part of the reason why 65% of those who challenge a decision are successful.

Jim Cunningham: We must always be careful when a Government say that they are targeting somebody or something, as we know that that is a codeword for cuts and a reduction in benefits. My constituents often find it an ordeal because they are going in to the unexpected, and they do not know what the outcome will be.

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend makes his point very powerfully.
The other condition I wanted to say something about is epilepsy. I am one of the honorary vice-presidents of Epilepsy Action, an organisation that has also been in touch with me today to say that that they fear that these proposals could penalise people with epilepsy who might rely on support or supervision to manage their medication and monitor their health condition. The DWP’s own case study recognises that a person with epilepsy who has a seizure might need a friend or carer to administer medicine, without which they might go into status epilepticus. We know that that can lead to brain damage or to death.
I reaffirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth said from the Front Bench. We have an opportunity through this debate to raise concerns on a cross-party basis, but I urge the  Government to listen to those concerns. As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) said earlier, we have been sent a message by the tribunals about parity between mental and physical health. Let us say clearly that we have listened to that message and urge the Government to reconsider the regulations.

Helen Whately: As someone who spends a great deal of time on work to improve care and support for people with mental health conditions, I will begin my remarks with a couple of contextual points before moving promptly to talking about the question of PIPs.
I am thankful that mental health has never been a higher priority for any Government. The Prime Minister has made it clear that it is a priority for her. We have the “Five Year Forward View for Mental Health” and extra funding for mental health. Campaigners, charities and professionals that I work with in the mental health sector have said to me that right now is a golden moment to improve mental health care because of this unprecedented commitment by the Government to mental health.

Gerald Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Helen Whately: I will just make a little bit of progress. I will then be happy to take interventions, if there is time.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Minister for Disabled People share the commitment to mental health. It is shown in the recently published Green Paper on work, health and disability and, for instance, in the Stevenson and Farmer review of employment for people with mental health problems.
There is strong evidence that PIP is a better benefit for people with mental health conditions than its predecessor. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) has already mentioned some of the statistics, so I will not reiterate them, beyond saying that it is important to note that people with mental health conditions are far more likely to receive the mobility component of PIP than its equivalent under DLA. Some 28% get the enhanced mobility component, compared with 10% getting the equivalent under DLA. That is relevant to this debate.
We should reiterate that the whole point of PIP, as the Minister has said in the Chamber before, is that the award is based on how the condition affects someone’s day-to-day life, not on their diagnosis. It is based on their needs and the consequent costs.

Gerald Jones: Does the hon. Lady agree that for the Government to suggest that mobility impairments caused by psychological issues are not relevant is an insult to anybody with a mental health condition? Does she also agree that mental health conditions should be treated no differently from physical ones?

Helen Whately: I do not agree with the first of the hon. Gentleman’s two points. He should continue to listen to what I have to say. I agree with his second point and, if he listens to what I have to say, he may find that we are aligned on that.
I thank the Minister for being exceptionally assiduous in responding to and discussing my concerns on these matters. I have had several meetings with her in which she has emphasised her commitment to achieving the original aim of PIP, which is to support people to live full and independent lives. I have questioned her about the regulations in my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on mental health, and as a local Member of Parliament. For instance, we have discussed the case of a lady I met in Maidstone a few weeks ago who had been set on fire on a bus. That lady told me that she has been unable to go out of the house without being accompanied by somebody she trusts since then. Throughout the discussion about the regulations, she has been worried that the welfare system might not treat her the same as someone who has been unable to leave the house because of a physical disability. The Minister has assured me that that is not the case and that people are, and will continue to be, given payments based not on their diagnosis, but on their needs.
Will the Minister now clarify to us all that somebody suffering with severe psychological distress such as  post-traumatic stress disorder, who needs to get out and about—for instance, to go to work or take their children to school—but finds it impossible to do so without significant assistance, could and would receive the enhanced rate mobility component of PIP, if their needs justified it?
Given the concern about the issue and the regulations, I also ask for the Minister’s reassurance on three counts regarding implementation. First, will she ensure that the guidance to PIP assessors is absolutely clear that people with mental health conditions can and should receive PIP awards based on their needs and costs, and that that may well be the enhanced level? Secondly, will she ensure, through the audit system that she has told me about, that this happens in practice? Thirdly, will she draw on the evidence provided by recordings of PIP assessments, the trialling of which I welcome, having pressed her and her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon, who is sitting behind me, on recording PIP assessments?

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Helen Whately: I am just wrapping up.
Finally, I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister assuring us all that the Government’s welfare system does, and will continue to, treat people the same, whether their needs arise from mental or physical conditions.

Kate Green: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on bringing this important matter before the House. I want to concentrate on a couple of the misapprehensions that have arisen in this afternoon’s debate and to clarify my understanding of the position, in the hope that the Minister will confirm it.
First, on the original policy intent, we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) that Ministers told us during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act in 2011 and 2012 not only that psychological stress and other conditions would be eligible to be covered by PIP, but, specifically, that the benefit would be judged on the basis not of the condition  but of the overall impact on someone’s life. If psychological stress is having a significant impact on somebody’s life, why will it be excluded in assessing them for the higher rate of PIP? That simply contradicts what we were told at the time of the Act’s passage. What is more, the Government themselves acknowledged in 2015 in the case of HL that psychological stress was to be included. They now say that was a mistake. Frankly, it is not good enough for Governments to go around making mistakes when something as important as this is at stake for our constituents.
Secondly, the Government have said that nobody will suffer a cut to their benefits. It is not clear whether they are still saying that, but to be clear, I have two things I would like to point out to the Minister. First, on 15 March, in the course of the urgent question heard in this House, the Secretary of State acknowledged to me that some people who had had their award increased as a result of the decision in the first tribunal could see that higher award reduced back to the level of the original Department for Work and Pensions award. He was very careful with his wording: he did not say that all awards would be protected but that the original DWP award would be. Does that mean that some people will, in practice, see their awards reduced?
If that is the case, when will that happen? I ask that because the second thing the Government are doing, as well as introducing these regulations, is appealing the two tribunal decisions. My understanding is that that is specifically to catch the people who currently see their benefits on a higher level, and who would enjoy that higher level of payments because the regulations would come in too late for them to be impacted and to see their benefits reduced again. Is the Minister now telling us that if the Government are successful in those appeals, they will reduce the benefits of people who got awards before the application of these regulations back to the level of the original DWP award?
Thirdly, can the Government reconcile the three cases decided in the upper tribunal on 9 March with the decision to strip out psychological stress, in part because it is a fluctuating condition? As we heard in the decisions made on 9 March in the upper tribunal, it is not just whether something is occasional that determines whether someone should be eligible for a higher rate of PIP; it is also about the overall impact of the harm caused by that condition. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), there is no better example of that than someone with epilepsy. They may suffer occasional seizures, but when they do, the harm they experience could be considerable, resulting in brain damage or even death. Will the Minister therefore explain how she reconciles those decisions on 9 March with the assertion that psychological stress should not attract the highest rate of award in appropriate circumstances because it is a fluctuating condition?

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I advise the House I would like the Minister to have 10 minutes in which to reply, so she needs to be on her feet at four minutes past 5.

Patricia Gibson: With regard to these PIP changes, the Government have done all they can to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. They  have ignored the concerns repeatedly expressed by MPs and the Disability Benefits Consortium, as well as the deafening clamour of concerns out there.
There can be no doubt that these PIP changes are having a fundamental and life-limiting effect on those affected by them. The whole point of PIP is to help with the extra costs resulting from disability or long-term ill health, replacing DLA. The effect, real or accidental, is clear discrimination against those living with mental health challenges that could put vulnerable claimants at risk. That was the conclusion of the House of Lords.
The Disability Benefits Consortium is extremely concerned that these changes will restrict access for disabled people who need PIP in facing additional costs. Clearly, the criteria are now far too strict, resulting in almost 50% of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions losing access to some or all of their support on being assessed. In addition, over 60% of PIP appeals are successful. To those who have had their support withdrawn or reduced, I would say this: go to your MP for help. The process is distressing and upsetting, but please appeal any decision that you think is unfair, because over 60% of appeals are successful. This shows on its own that the process is not working. It also shows that the system causes unnecessary distress for far too many claimants. My constituency office in Ardrossan has numerous examples of such cases leaving claimants confused, frightened, bewildered and in serious financial difficulty.
There are also particular concerns around the mobility component, with over 750 returning their Motability vehicles every week due to the withdrawal of essential support. We know from the DWP’s own analysis that 146,000 disabled people could lose financial support as they drop from the higher rate of mobility to no entitlement at all. It is also conceded by the DWP that there is difficulty in predicting these numbers, and so the final numbers losing financial support could in fact be much higher.
It is vital that the PIP assessment criteria are reviewed to ensure that there are clear definitions in place before any changes are made. The criteria are far too narrow and restrictive. They simply do not recognise the impact that many long-term conditions and disabilities have on a person’s ability to undertake daily living activities, and often fail to take account of hidden and fluctuating symptoms, including cognitive difficulties. What kind of people are suffering under this system? Those with MS and those with Parkinson’s—serious chronic conditions. Those with such conditions very often also suffer from depression and anxiety. If that is not specifically and separately diagnosed, then in terms of PIP assessments, it does not exist. Those with long-term conditions and disabilities that include depression and anxiety as a common symptom will not score under the original descriptor.
These changes, on top of the arbitrary cut of £30 a week to the ESA work-related activity group which is also due to be imposed, show the complete disregard for disabled people felt by this Government. How can putting disabled people into greater hardship help to remove the barriers that will help them back to work? Where are the disability employment support programmes outlined in the Green Paper? We need to treat disabled  people with dignity and respect. This Government need to listen and show some compassion and understanding, and stop trying to build an austerity programme on the backs of the poor and the disabled.

Tom Brake: I want to start by thanking the Minister. Last Wednesday, as I was coming down the escalator, she, in a large crowd of people, was coming in the opposite direction and let us know in no uncertain terms that we should leave the building. I thank her for that.
Moving on to the debate, I thank my staff, who, like others, have a 100% success rate in the appeals that we have taken up in our office. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for facilitating this debate—or, in fact, forcing it on the Government. The Government should have facilitated it in a timely manner, and they stand condemned for failing to do so in spite of a cross-party request that they make time available. I am pleased that the original prayer that we tabled with the support of the main Opposition party has led to the successful securing of this debate under Standing Order No. 24, thanks to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).
As Members have said, PIP helps disabled people to meet some of the costs related to their impairment or condition, and the Government have a stated intention of securing parity of esteem for physical and mental health. How does stopping people with mental health problems securing extra support through PIP for their journey—that is activity 11, I believe—help to achieve parity of esteem?
The Government claim that they are simply affirming what was originally intended in the legislation. I dispute that, and the evidence backs me up. Members have quoted what the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said about that, particularly the phrase that
“PIP is designed to assess barriers individuals face, not make a judgment based on their impairment type.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 232W.]
Lord Freud said:
“One of the big differences between ?the personal independence payment and DLA is that the personal independence payment looks at the person’s ability to plan and execute a journey, not just at their physical capacity.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 February 2011; Vol. 725, c. 9.]
Those examples alone demonstrate that the Government’s intention was to allow people with mental health problems to receive PIP to assist them if their mental health meant that they could not travel without assistance. If the Government want to change the law because of the extra costs associated with funding parity of esteem, so be it, but let us have proper scrutiny, a proper debate and a proper vote, not this piece of parliamentary jiggery-pokery.

John Bercow: We are most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I advise the Minister that she should sit down no later than 5.13 pm.

Penny Mordaunt: I start by thanking all hon. Members, from all parts of the House, who have contributed to the debate. There are many points that I need to answer  and I do not have much time, but I will do my best, and I will write to hon. Members about any outstanding points.
As hon. Members know, at the core of PIP’s design is the principle that awards should be made according to a person’s level of need, not whether their condition is of one sort or another. Those who have higher need, greater limitations on their ability to participate in society and higher costs associated with their condition will get more support.

Stephen Timms: Will the Minister give way?

Penny Mordaunt: I will answer the questions that have already been raised, and if I have time I will take interventions at the end.
That approach—using the social definition of disability—is important, and assessments are therefore complex. The assessor will try to understand the impact on a person’s life and how their disability or health condition affects them in their caring duties, parenting, social life and daily living.
As the House has heard many times, recent legal judgments have interpreted the assessment criteria for PIP in ways different from what the coalition Government originally intended. The upper tribunal judgments were concerned solely with the interpretation of the wording and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) has said, not with policy. We have therefore made amendments to clarify the criteria used to decide how much benefit claimants receive. The changes restore the original aim of the policy, which was agreed by Parliament following extensive consultation, and they add essential clarity for all.

Stephen Timms: Will the Minister give way?

Penny Mordaunt: I will make some progress. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said in the House and in his letter last week to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), it is important to be clear about what these regulations are not. They are not a policy change, they are not intended to make new savings and they will not result in any claimant seeing a reduction in the amount of PIP previously awarded by the DWP. There is no change to the budget and no change to the guidance that we give to assessors.
To answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), she is right to say that between the making of the rulings and the coming into force of the regulations, a handful of people—we think about eight—will have been awarded a higher amount in the tribunal rulings. We will not claw back money from those people, but we will look at those cases and our intention is to restore them to the original benefit level. That is one reason why we have acted quickly. There will be no change in the amount of PIP paid to people who have previously been awarded a certain amount by the DWP, or in the amount paid to people who will be assessed on the same principles and the same policy in the future.
It is entirely appropriate for the Government to act to restore clarity to the law, as Governments have done before and will no doubt continue to do in the future. Indeed, Labour, when in government back in 2000,  introduced a change to the rules for disability living allowance that overturned a commissioner’s decision holding that telephone conversations with someone with severe depression and chronic anxiety should count as qualifying attention for the care component of DLA. That decision was seen to have significantly widened the gateway not only to DLA, but to attendance allowance, and the then Government took a similar decision to the one we have taken to restore the original policy intent.
Let me assure the House that we want to ensure our policies are working and being delivered effectively, and we will continue to review our policies, including on PIP, regularly. I remind everyone that this Government have already introduced two formal statutory reviews of the PIP assessment, and we remain committed to publishing Paul Gray’s independent review, as set out in legislation. We remain committed to making continuous improvement in the PIP assessment and our decision making, and to improving the advice we provide to guide people through the process.
We know that feedback from claimants and stakeholders gives us valuable insight into the services we deliver. That is why we are setting up service user panels for PIP and ESA claimants, their carers and advocates, and representative groups to gather views on PIP and ESA. The panels, which will start next month and will initially run for 12 months, will ask for people’s views on their experiences of claiming, capture new ideas for improvement and test reactions to specific changes and proposals. We wish to reach as many people as possible.

Stephen Timms: rose—

Penny Mordaunt: I am coming to the right hon. Gentleman’s point, if he will give me a moment.
We are working with charities and representative organisations to promote awareness and draw on their expertise. Following references to the panels in another place last month, we have started to see requests from claimants who are keen to participate. We are carrying out pilots to test whether there are any benefits to audio recording face-to-face assessments. The pilots, which started on 13 March, will last for six weeks and involve 400 claimants. We are trialling telephoning claimants to ensure all that the evidence they wish to be considered has been collected and submitted. That is critical to reducing the number of cases going to mandatory reconsideration and appeal, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) pointed out. We are giving people fuller reasons why they have not been successful to ensure that they understand those reasons exactly.
We have strengthened clinical support and clinical mentoring for the healthcare professionals who carry out assessments. Our assessors discuss with people the impacts on their life before taking a medical history. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) raised the critical issue of ensuring that there is support throughout the assessment process, particularly for people with a mental health condition. I will not list all the things we do, but he will know that processes are in place, with special markers for such individuals. We are always interested to hear how we can improve those processes, but they are already part of the system.

Stephen Timms: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Penny Mordaunt: I want to respond to the points that have already been raised. I will take an intervention if I have time, if the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
The health and work Green Paper and Paul Gray’s second review will both look at the issue of shared health records, which hon. Members mentioned. We have also been working more closely with Motability to ensure that the issues of appeals and counterproductive bureaucracy—hon. Members also referred to those issues—are resolved, and we will report back to the House as soon as possible. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Victoria Borwick) that the particular focus has been on young people and students. We are looking at what further we can do, and I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani) that we are indeed working closely with the RNIB.
Let me turn to the specifics on mental health and the regulations. Supporting people with mental illness is a priority for this Government. That is why we are spending more on mental health provision than ever before— £11.4 billion this year alone. We have introduced the first ever access and waiting standards for mental health services. These changes and investments are already making a difference. Since 2010, the number of people accessing mental health services has risen by 40%—

Stephen Timms: rose—

Penny Mordaunt: I am coming on to the right hon. Gentleman’s point.
The number of consultant psychiatrists in this country has risen by 5%. We are working to join up the healthcare system, the welfare system and society more widely so that we focus on the strengths of people with disabilities or health conditions and what they can do if properly supported. It is for that reason that in the summer of 2015 the health and work unit was created in the Department of Health, and why in October last year we published, “Improving Lives”, the work and health—

Norman Lamb: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You rightly ensured that the Minister had enough time to answer questions, but none of what she is saying is about the key issue in the regulations.

John Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman must seek to intervene if he can and pursue other mechanisms if he cannot.

Penny Mordaunt: I am coming on to the regulations, but I think that the key to this whole debate is that people are questioning the parity between mental health and physical health. I point out to the House that mental health was never more prominent on any previous Government’s agenda.

Stephen Timms: rose—

Penny Mordaunt: If Members will allow me, I will turn to the regulations—I will not repeat the statistics that show that PIP is more favourable than DLA for those with a mental health condition. Let me tackle the issues relating to the regulations.
Several Members have concluded that if someone is suffering from psychological distress, that would not count towards their score and they would somehow be prevented from scoring the maximum on the descriptors. That is not the case. As time is tight, perhaps I could  place some case studies in the Library if that is in order, Mr Speaker. As has been pointed out, if someone is suffering from autism, PTSD, depression or a similar condition, they can score 12 points on that descriptor.
Let me cover the issues on process. We have used the most appropriate parliamentary procedure. It is set out in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. In the light of the significant and urgent consequences of the judgments, the amendments were passed to the Social Security Advisory Committee on 8 March—that is, after the regulations were laid. We have welcomed the Committee’s response and the fact that it did not wish to have the regulations referred to it for public consultation. We have also responded in full to the Committee’s recommendations. In particular, we have made it clear that we are committed to continuous improvement, as we recognise that it is important, for both quality and consistency, to ensure that PIP policy is clearly articulated. We have also made it clear that we will ensure that healthcare professionals who carry out the assessments fully understand what those amendments mean. The regulations were today passed by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
In the seconds I have left, I reassure the House that the regulations simply restore the original aim of the policy, as previously debated, and that we are delivering PIP in line with its original intent. We stress again that the changes will not result in claimants seeing a reduction in the amount of PIP awarded by the Department.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered changes to Personal Independence Payment Regulations.

Karl Turner: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In an earlier intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), I forgot to mention an indirect interest: my wife sits as a tribunal judge. I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and the House.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has made the position clear and he has done so very quickly, and the House will have noted that.

Charles Walker: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I apologise to you and the House for inadvertently misleading it during my Adjournment debate last Thursday on the Ratty’s Lane incinerator? I said that in 2012 Hertfordshire County Council objected to 46 of Veolia’s HGV movements a day, and that the company was now proposing 212 HGV movements a day. That figure was provided to me by Veolia on 4 March 2016, but I have since discovered that the actual number is 268 HGV movements a day. [Interruption.] Nothing Veolia tells me turns out to be the reality of the situation, but I owe it to this House to do my homework more thoroughly, so may I apologise to you again, Mr Speaker, for misleading this House and to my esteemed colleagues in this place, who indicate that they share my sense of outrage?

John Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is certainly a witty wag. I would add that, as far as Veolia is concerned, the hon.  Gentleman is a formidable foe. I rather imagine the company is discovering that now, if it did not know it before.

Simon Burns: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As you will appreciate, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) was put in a most unfortunate situation because he was given duff information that he used in good faith. It then turned out that the incorrect information he gave was an underestimate of the severe impact those journeys were going to have on his constituents and local community. Could you advise us, Mr Speaker, of any satisfactory way, notwithstanding my hon. Friend’s generous apology to the House, for the perpetrators of this disinformation to be called to this place to explain why they embarrassed my hon. Friend in a way that led to misleading figures being given in a debate, which had an effect on the views of other hon. Members listening to the debate?

John Bercow: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that point of order. Summoning someone to the Bar of the House is rarely used as a disciplinary device and is an extremely serious matter. I would have to reflect very carefully on whether it would be appropriate in this case. Even if it were not, I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree with me, and I think other hon. Members would agree, that in the circumstances the least we all might expect is for an apology to be proffered by the company. There is no shame in making a mistake, but there certainly is in failing to recognise the fact that one has done so and failing to apologise for having done so. I will wait to see whether we receive an apology. If I receive any such apology, the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to hear of it.

PENSION SCHEMES BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 3)

Ordered,
That the Order of 30 January 2017 (Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] (Programme)), as varied by the Order of 22 March 2017 (Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)) be further varied as follows:
(1) The Order of 22 March 2017 (Pension Schemes Bill) [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)) shall be rescinded.
(2) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order of 30 January 2017 (Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] (Programme)) shall be omitted.
(3) Proceedings on Consideration shall be brought to a conclusion immediately after the conclusion of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Richard Harrington.)

PENSION SCHEMES BILL [LORDS]

Further consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee
New Clause 1

Funder of the last resort

“Notwithstanding the provisions of section 8, the Secretary of State shall make provision for a funder of last resort, to manage any cases where the Master Trust has insufficient resources to meet the cost of complying with subsection (3)(b) of that section.”—(Alex Cunningham.)
Brought up, read the First time, and Question proposed (22 March), That the clause be read a Second time.
Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

Lindsay Hoyle: Members will be aware that when the House previously considered the Bill on Wednesday last, the sitting was suspended, and subsequently the House adjourned, during a Division on the Question that new clause 1 be read a Second time. I shall begin proceedings on the Bill today by again putting that Question to the House.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
The House divided:
Ayes 230, Noes 289.

Question accordingly negatived.
The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
New Clause 2

Member trustees

“(1) By a date to be set by the Secretary of State in regulations, approved Master Trust Schemes must ensure that at least a third of the trustees of the scheme are Member Trustees.
(2) Member Trustees must be individuals who are—
(a) members of the Master Trust scheme; and
(b) not members of senior management of a company that is enrolled in the Master Trust scheme.
(3) Member Trustees must be appointed by a process in which—
(a) any member of the scheme who meets the condition in subsection (2) is to apply to be a Member Trustee,
(b) all the active members of the scheme, or an organisation which adequately represents the active members, are eligible to participate in the selection of the Member Trustees, and
(c) all the deferred members of the scheme, or an organisation which adequately represents the deferred members, are eligible to participate in the selection of the Member Trustees.
(4) Member Trustees should be given sufficient time off by their employer to fulfil their duties.
(5) For the purpose of this clause “senior management”, in relation to an organisation, means the persons who play significant roles in—
(a) the making of decisions about how the whole or a substantial part of its activities are to be managed or organised, or
(b) the actual managing or organising of the whole or a substantial part of those activities.”—Alex Cunningham.)
This new clause requires Master Trusts to make provision for some form of member representation within Master Trusts.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
The House divided:
Ayes 187, Noes 289.

Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 11

Systems and processes requirements

Amendment proposed: 1,page8,line13, at end insert—
“( ) A minimum requirement of annual reporting of administration, fund management costs and transaction costs for each asset class, drawdown product and for active and passive asset management strategies.”—(Alex Cunningham.)
This amendment would introduce annual reporting and inclusion of transaction costs requirements for Master Trusts.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 188, Noes 286.

Question accordingly negatived.
Third Reading

Richard Harrington: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We return to this Bill after last Wednesday’s traumatic events. My thoughts and sympathies, and those of all the House, are with those who were affected. I take this opportunity to thank hon. Members from both sides of the House and the House staff for their support and professionalism in what was a very difficult time for us all.
I am pleased to see Madam Deputy Speaker in the Chair, as she has not heard any of this before. This Bill focuses on master trusts, introducing a new authorisation regime for them and setting out how they must satisfy the Pensions Regulator of certain criteria before they can begin, or continue, to operate.
The criteria were developed in discussion with the industry, and respond to specific key risks. Although the Bill provides some detail, more will be set out in regulations after further consultation with the industry and others. The Bill gives the regulator new powers to supervise master trusts, and to step in when schemes risk falling below the required standards. It also gives the regulator additional powers when a master trust experiences a key risk event. A scheme that has experienced such an event will be required either to resolve the issue or to wind up. As well as giving the regulator new powers, this Bill supports continuity of savings for members, protects members when a scheme is to wind up, and supports employers with their automatic enrolment duties.
To protect members of existing schemes, some aspects of the regime will have effect from 20 October 2016. Schemes are required to report triggering events to the regulator, and there are restrictions on certain charges until the event is resolved. The Bill also amends existing legislation so that regulations can override relevant contract terms that are inconsistent with those regulations. We intend to use this provision, along with existing powers, to make regulations that cap early exit charges and ban member-borne commission in some occupational pension schemes.
When this Bill was introduced in the other place last October, it was welcomed across the pensions industry as an essential piece of legislation that would protect the millions of people now saving for their retirement through master trusts. I am pleased to say that the Bill has been broadly welcomed by those in all parts of both Houses. We have listened to the points raised in both Houses, and have continued to engage with stakeholders. I can confirm that we have brought forward a number of Government amendments to address their concerns. In the other place, amendments in Committee mainly related to how the regulator would enforce the new authorisation regime.
Amendments on Report in the Lords focused on regulation-making powers in the Bill, in acknowledgement of the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. One amendment inserted a power to make limited consequential changes to legislation to ensure that the law works as it should. We also made a change to allow the provisions on fraud compensation in the Pensions Act 2004 to be modified for master trusts.
On Third Reading in the Lords, we made one minor technical change to clarify that regulations on scheme funders’ accounts may require them to be audited. In Committee in this House, we agreed further changes. First, the Committee removed a clause that had been inserted after a narrow vote on Report in the other place, which provided for a scheme funder of last resort to meet the costs when a master trust is being wound up without the necessary funds to transfer the accrued benefits. We discussed that once again on Report last week, when the House accepted the Government’s argument that this additional provision is unnecessary.
In response to a point raised in the other place about an unintended consequence of the Bill, we made amendments to enable a scheme funder to engage in activities in relation to any part of the scheme, not just the money purchase section. The original requirement in the Bill that the scheme funder be a separate legal entity, and carry out only activities directly relating to the master trust scheme in question, was amended to address concerns about the impact of the requirement on business. The amendments enable scheme funders to operate more than one master trust, and also give the Secretary of State the flexibility to make exceptions to the requirement that scheme funders’ activities be limited to the master trusts of which they are the scheme funder or prospective funder.
I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions, including the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), and the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford)—not least because I can now say the name of his constituency without reading it. I particularly thank the Bill team from the Department for Work and Pensions, and everyone who has contributed to making this Bill an excellent piece of legislation.

Debbie Abrahams: As we know, the passage of the Bill was interrupted this time last week as a result of the horrendous attack that took place just metres from this place. I echo the Minister’s remarks, and express my condolences to everyone who is grieving for a loved one, or who is recovering from their injuries. I also express my gratitude to the emergency services, and especially to the incredible support team working in and around this amazing place. I want to say how treasured they all are.
On to the Bill. I want to put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) for his unstinting work on this Bill, to our colleagues in the other place, who, as has already been mentioned, kicked this whole process off, and to all our teams for all the hard work they put in to try to ensure that the Bill, which is about closing the gaps in the regulatory framework for master trusts and increasing protections for their savers, is as effective as possible.
It will come as no surprise to the Minister to hear that I regret that he has been a little intransigent in failing to accept our amendments. He might have been constrained, but I wish we could have done more, as it would have strengthened the Bill and protected savers further. However, the Bill as it stands goes some way to  increasing protections for master trust savers, the vast majority of whom were automatically enrolled through their sponsoring employer.
This has not been the easiest Bill to scrutinise. The content is, of course, technical, and an unusual amount of legislation is left to secondary regulations, which is a concern. That is becoming a hallmark of this Government and is entirely regrettable. It has not only brought criticism to the Government from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, which has suggested that the Government are writing legislation in lieu of policy, but has made it difficult for this House to get a full picture of how the legislation will operate in practice.
Nevertheless, we are about to point out a number of significant gaps in the Government’s approach to the legislation, as well as some parts that we believe require further thought. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North mentioned last week, we tried to table amendments in Committee to enact our commitment to the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—women to extend pension credit to those worst affected, ensuring that hundreds of thousands of those women became eligible for up to £156 a week. Sadly, the amendments were not selected. It is a real disappointment that the Government did not use the Bill to address the plight of these women. Labour has a clear, costed plan targeted towards the most vulnerable women, and we are exploring further options to help as many as we can.
Given that we understand that this will be the only pensions Bill in this Parliament—the Pensions Minister can put me right on that—there are many other pensions issues that should have been included in a more comprehensive Bill. As we have said before, this was a wasted opportunity.
Let me move on to the specifics of the Bill. On the funder of last resort, it is a shame that the Government did not heed the advice of our noble Friends in the other place and provide for a funder of last resort. Our amendment would have ensured that scheme members were protected in the event of a master trust becoming insolvent, and would have offered them a clear route for the drawdown of their savings. The Minister believes that the new regulatory framework provides sufficient protection to make this provision unnecessary, yet he seemed unwilling to give a guarantee that no future master trust would go bust. I am glad that he has such faith in the regulatory regime, and I genuinely hope, for the sake of scheme members, that his faith is justified.
We hope to improve the clauses relating to pause orders. Under the legislation, the regulator can step in following a triggering event to halt accumulation and decumulation from a failing master trust. The Government have made an exception for people getting divorced to allow them to access funds held under a pause order, but they did not see fit to offer the same opportunity to, for example, disabled people or those in ill health. This is likely to cause distress to those who desperately need to draw down their savings. The Government did little to consider what would happen to savers affected by a pause order who wished to continue putting aside contributions from their salary and their sponsoring employer for retirement. Our amendment suggested that the employer take responsibility for holding on to these savings until the pause order ended or a new master trust was found. The Government again unfortunately rejected this practical suggestion.
The lack of transparency of costs and charges is a scandal of the pensions industry, and there have been Government promises to tackle it for years. I remember, several years ago, being a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, and one of the Treasury Ministers in the last Parliament promising that this would be done, but we are still waiting. It is one of those issues that we are taking far too long to tackle. I appreciate that a review will be published at the end of the year, but that will be too late for legislation. Again, it will be up to the industry to determine what, how and when it will publish its costs.
The matter of charges is a real scandal. I wonder whether anybody here knows the charges on their pension scheme. The charges affecting all savers have been estimated at up to £120 billion a year. We need to decide whose side we are on. Are we going to look after savers or prop up the pensions industry? We tried to raise the issue of opaque costs and charges being applied to members’ savings pots by investment managers and brokers, but again, the Government failed to respond. For too long, people have been encouraged to put their faith and, more importantly, their money in a distant savings pot, with very little information about where that money is invested, the performance of their savings and, importantly, the costs and charges incurred on the investment. In short, neither the scheme trustees nor the scheme members have been able adequately to ascertain whether they are getting value for money on their investments. In almost every other market, people looking to purchase goods or services are provided with basic information about performance and cost in advance of their purchase. This is a necessary requirement to ensure that they are getting value for money, yet this basic principle is not operating in our pensions system.
Part 2 of the Bill makes a small step towards greater transparency regarding the charges applied for those hoping to make the most of pension freedoms and to remove their savings from a master trust, but we maintain that it is not enough. Much more could have been done to shine a light on transaction costs applied to investment returns. The Minister committed the Government to implementing the recommendations of the Financial Conduct Authority’s report on the asset management market. Surely this would have been a great opportunity for the Government to make a start.
There is a lot of work to be done to tackle the problem of opaque and excessive costs and charges being extracted from workers’ savings by investment managers. This Bill merely scratches the surface. The question of governance also remains unanswered by the Government, despite the Opposition’s attempts to clarify. We believe that the Bill should have increased member representation on trustee boards. Their money is being invested, and they should be involved. The Pensions Act 1995 introduced the requirement for company pension schemes to have member-nominated trustees. If the scheme’s sole trustee is a company including the employer, rather than an individual, scheme members will have the right to nominate directors to that company.
The Pensions Act 2004 enshrined the right to have at least a third of the trustees of a trust-based scheme nominated by scheme members. That stems from the basic democratic principle that those for whom decisions are being taken should have a say in those decisions.  The Pensions Regulator agrees that master trusts are covered by that legislation, which is why some already have member-nominated trustees.
The regulator has, however, turned a blind eye to this matter, on the basis that having multiple sponsoring employers presents a barrier. That is not acceptable, and we have urged the Government to clarify and apply the law in this regard. Scheme members should be represented among the trustees of master trust funds—it is, as I said, their money, and they have a direct interest in ensuring there is a sound and sustainable investment strategy that delivers good value. It is disappointing that the Government did not take up this matter, which requires urgent action. Nor was a convincing argument given as to why master trusts should not have to meet their statutory requirements, especially in the light of the increased risk being borne by scheme members.
It is also disappointing that the Bill does nothing to build on the success of Labour’s policy on auto-enrolment by ensuring that saving into master trusts is accessible and encouraged for a number of groups that were excluded from auto-enrolment by the Government’s changes to the eligibility criteria. Throughout these debates, we have recognised that the Government have announced a review of auto-enrolment, but we have not yet heard an explanation of why it comes after the Bill. The self-employed, women, those working multiple jobs, carers and people on low incomes could all benefit hugely from an enhanced opportunity to save towards their retirement. Although the Government did not feel they could commit to a proper statutory basis for their review, we shall hold them to account in the review itself to ensure it properly serves excluded groups.
To conclude, we of course welcome legislation to strengthen the regulatory footing of master trusts. We have, however, tried throughout these debates to address a number of serious issues through pragmatic engagement with the Bill, and by highlighting its many gaps. One would think that the Government would have had time to include much more detail on this piece of primary legislation to allow for proper scrutiny in both Houses. It seems, however, that they were unable to get their act together on this aspect of pensions. [Interruption.] There is some chuntering from the Government Benches—I think there is dissent there. However, we hope that, through these debates, we have at least drawn attention to these important issues, and to the need to create further security and dignity in retirement for working families across the UK.

Ian Blackford: May I associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister and the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) about the events of last Wednesday? We should reflect on the fact that those events were unfolding outside this Chamber while we were having our debate. Our thoughts are very much with those who, in the line of duty, defended our interests, including the police officer who lost his life, as well as with the others who lost their lives, those who have been injured and all those who have been affected.
As we have this debate, we should reflect on the responsibility that all Members have to build an architecture that creates a climate in which consumers around the  UK can safely invest in pension schemes and savings, and in which there is an element of trust. I broadly welcome the Bill’s role in improving the landscape. It is an important step forward in so far as it puts in place the necessary protection for those who are investing through auto-enrolment. It is crucial that we have the regulation in the Bill.
Like the Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, I would have been happier if the Government had accepted some of our amendments. Having said that, I was very much encouraged by the Minister’s response last week, particularly to an amendment I tabled regarding section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995. I welcome the commitment to revisiting this issue. As has been said, the Bill has to be seen in the wider context of what we are seeking to achieve on pensions.
Two of my new clauses were not selected for debate, one of which was on the establishment of a pensions and savings commission. I still believe that the Government should consider that proposal, because an awful lot is going on in this landscape, some of which was described by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth. There is the forthcoming review of auto-enrolment. We have had the Cridland review, the Green Paper on defined-benefit pension schemes and the FCA paper. I think that there is a willingness among all of us to work collegiately to improve the interrelationship of all these factors. I look forward to the debates that we will have in taking this forward. This all comes back to my point about how we can create further confidence so that we get effective saving in the pensions landscape.
I put this in the context of the Green Paper, one of the most striking features of which is the indication at its beginning that the average defined-benefit pot is £7,000. We all have to accept that pension savings are not at an appropriate level. We all want people to save to such an extent that they can have dignity in retirement through both their workplace pension and the state pension provision. I look forward to working with the Government on the review of auto-enrolment. While we are improving the protection for today’s consumers, we need to do more to protect other people, particularly a lot of women who have been excluded, such as those in part-time jobs who are below the threshold, and the self-employed.
I applaud the Government for what they are doing. While the Bill is a very necessary step forward, there is much more that we can do by working together for the mutual benefit of those who invest in pension schemes.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

MIDDLE LEVEL BILL

Second Reading

Kevin Foster: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It might be helpful for the House if I give some background to the Bill and set out the reasons why it is before us. The first point—

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kevin Foster: I will make some progress and then I will happily give way.
For those not familiar with the Bill, the first thing is to ask, “What is the Middle Level?” The Middle Level is the central and largest section of the Great Level of the fens, which was reclaimed by drainage during the mid-17th century. The area is bounded to the north-west and east by the Nene and the Ouse washes, to the north by the previously drained marshland silts, and to the south and west by low clay hills. The Middle Level river system consists of over 120 miles of watercourses, approximately 100 miles of which are statutory navigations, and has a catchment of just over 170,000 acres. Virtually all the fenland within the Middle Level catchment lies below mean sea level.
The Middle Level Commissioners, together with the local internal drainage boards, therefore operate a highly complex flood protection and water level management system to balance the various water uses and requirements, and to alleviate the risk of flooding of land and properties. The efficient operation of this system is vital to the safety and prosperity of the 100,000-plus people who live and work in the area and the 26,000 properties that depend on it. But for the operations of the commissioners and the local boards, much of the fenland would be underwater for a lot of the year, access from higher ground would be cut off, and many of the current land uses would be impossible.

John Howell: The levels are very important because they often have quite sensitive archaeology. Would the Bill affect that in the slightest?

Kevin Foster: My understanding from the promoters of the Bill is that it is about the framework for the management of the levels and the waterways, rather than specific developments or projects. If the commissioners decided to pursue such things, they would have to go through the usual process to get permission. Given the historical nature of some of these sites, that could involve an extensive consideration of archaeological impact.

Christopher Chope: Now that my hon. Friend is taking interventions, may I ask him what his status is? He is telling us about the Bill and the location with which it deals, but his constituency is nowhere near the affected area. Why has it not been possible for the promoters of the Bill to find a local MP who is sympathetic to it?

Kevin Foster: My hon. Friend is a doughty scrutiniser of Bills, even if they do not relate to Christchurch. I know that he, like me, takes his duties as a Member of the House very seriously when it comes to promoting  and debating legislation. He rightly champions the point that there is no restriction on our debating legislation even if it does not directly affect our constituencies. Private Bills must be sponsored by Back-Bench Members, for obvious reasons, and some of the MPs directly affected by the Bill are Ministers. Given the interest that I have expressed in waterways and their consistent management, I think that it is appropriate for me to sponsor this Bill. Of course, all Members will have the opportunity to participate in the debate, and I hope that we will hear from at least one local Member who is directly affected. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also share his insights into the Bill.

Henry Bellingham: I am not directly affected by the Bill, but the drains and waterways in question are adjacent to my constituency. I support the Bill 100%, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend is sponsoring it. I think it is appropriate for him to do so, because a local MP might encounter conflicts of some kind. It makes a great deal of sense for an MP from another part of the country to sponsor this important Bill to give the commissioners more powers, and we are grateful to him for doing so.

Kevin Foster: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I could not have put it better myself.
Why do we need a Bill? As many hon. Members know, I regularly make the point on Fridays that legislating is not something to do for the fun of it or a unique form of parliamentary sport. For a Bill to be worthy of parliamentary time, there must be a clear need for it. This private Bill is being promoted by the Middle Level Commissioners, a statutory corporation constituted under the Middle Level Act 1862. The commissioners provide flood defence and water level management to the Middle Level area, and they are the navigation authority for the Middle Level river system. The legal framework that governs the commissioners’ navigation function is made up of several 18th and 19th-century Acts that regulate the use of these waterways, which were mainly laid out in the 17th century.

Stewart Jackson: May I, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, offer my sincerest apologies for my lateness? I was detained coming into the Palace.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the area covered by the Middle Level Commissioners is not strictly analogous to that of other navigation authorities, in that the Middle Level area consists essentially of interconnected drainage basins rather than stand-alone, bespoke rivers and canals?

Kevin Foster: My hon. Friend shows his exceptional knowledge of his constituency and the assets that support it. He is right. Fundamentally, as I will come on to say when I talk about the regulatory framework, the waterways in question were built as a drainage system, but they have gone on to be used by pleasure boats and other vessels. One of the reasons why the Bill is necessary is because some of the uses were not envisaged at the time of the 1862 Act. Clearly motorboats did not exist at the time, and the concept of canal usage was very different.

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kevin Foster: I will make some more progress and then I will be only too happy to give way again.
The regulation of these waterways, which were mainly laid out in the 17th century, is considerably out of date and does not align with modern requirements or the statutory framework applicable to other navigation authorities, including neighbouring ones. In particular, the current legal framework that governs the commissioners does not include adequate provision for the registration of vessels using the waterways or the levying of charges for the use of the waterways and associated facilities. In my briefings with the promoters, it was remarked that the framework means that the exemptions are for pleasure craft and those transporting manure. As a result, the commissioners currently do not receive any income from the navigation of the waterways, so money raised through drainage rates and levies has to be used to fund navigation, rather than flood defences. In the financial year ending on 31 March 2016, this amounted to £178,929.06 of unfunded expenditure. The commissioners are therefore seeking to update and clarify their powers to enable them to regulate and fund their waterways properly.
The powers sought are similar to those already used by other large inland navigation authorities, such as the Canal & River Trust, the Environment Agency and the Broads Authority. In essence, the future maintenance and management of the waterway will be funded in a similar way to others, not based on one set of users, and those who benefit can be asked to contribute.
Why do we have a private Bill? The commissioners originally proposed to update their governing legislation in the 2000s using a Transport and Works Act order. They approached the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which rightly considered that the introduction of the proposed registration and charging schemes would be outside the powers of a TWAO, so the proposals did not proceed any further. Having consulted on updated proposals, the commissioners approached DEFRA again last year, but in October 2016, the Department confirmed that its position had not changed and that a TWAO could not be used. Its reasoning was that a TWAO could not be used to impose charges on navigation governed by primary legislation that does not itself contain charging provisions, as is the case for Middle Level navigation. It was therefore suggested that the commissioners should pursue a private Bill to update their powers.
I am sure that Members will agree that this is the right approach. It is welcome that we can debate these important subjects in our consideration of the Bill. Although this is the first opportunity for a wider debate in the House on this matter, the proposals will not come as a surprise to those who might be affected, as there has already been a wider consultation.

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. May I put it to him that, at first sight, the Bill is an attempt to regularise the Middle Level vis-à-vis legislation for other navigation authorities, but what is missing from it—this might be different with secondary legislation—is any commensurate commitment to upgrade facilities that are similar to those of other navigation authorities? That is the Achilles heel of the Bill, and it is where it might need to be looked at again by this House or the other place.

Kevin Foster: I will respond to those comments when I come on to the petitions. However, I agree with my hon. Friend: clearly nobody wants to pay extra charges for the same facilities, but if we do not change the legal framework, those using the Middle Level for drainage are being asked to pay for facilities for those using it for navigation, making it very unlikely that facilities will ever be developed. These things need to go hand in hand. When I move on to the petitions, I will say a bit more about the commissioners’ views about the facilities that people who are required to pay should expect in exchange.

Christopher Chope: Is it right to say that the consultation took place at the same time as the EU referendum, the outcome of which we are celebrating today? Is it also right to say that, for example, the March cruising club, whose headquarters is almost opposite the commissioners’ offices, was not consulted, and that other petitioners were not consulted either?

Kevin Foster: I know that my hon. Friend would agree with me that people are more than able to deal with two issues at the same time. The EU referendum was very important and many hon. Members engaged with it—I know that he engaged passionately and put his side of the argument—but they can also deal with other things, as was true today, when hon. Members have had various items on the agenda. I would not say immediately that the fact that the consultation coincided with the referendum meant that nobody took part in it. Petitions against the Bill have been deposited, and if the Bill is read the Second time, the petitioners can be heard before an Opposed Private Bill Committee, which will scrutinise the Bill in more depth. I hope that my hon. Friend will support the Bill on Second Reading so that those points can be made, the petitioners can come along and we can consider how to work constructively and appropriately to create a modern framework of regulation, rather than continue with a framework based on the needs of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. He made the key point earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), which is that the powers need to be brought up to date, made more fit for purpose and more modern, and brought into line with similar powers over other waterways, as exercised by the Environment Agency, the Canal & River Trust and the Broads Authority, which is near my constituency. An update is long overdue.

Kevin Foster: I thank my hon. Friend for putting succinctly the exact points that need to be made. The current system of regulation dates from another era and it needs to be brought into line with the successful system elsewhere. The House is not being petitioned to revert other areas to the old system, but there is a demand for change.
It might be helpful if I go through the consultation that took place between February and June 2016. The commissioners notified affected parties, including those with navigation interests, land drainage interests and local authorities, and published newspaper notices and placed details on their website. Of the 23 responses received, 18 were supportive, three neutral and two opposed.
It might be helpful if I list the supporters. They include the Inland Waterways Association, the East Anglian Waterways Association, the Association Of Nene River Clubs, the National Association of Boat Owners, the Middle Level Watermen’s Club, the Residential Boat Owners’ Association, the Association of Waterway Cruising Clubs and five local councils. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham), who represents a nearby constituency, has also indicated his support.
It is also right that I mention the concerns. Six petitions against the Bill have been deposited by individuals with varying interests in the navigation of the waterways, including the March cruising club, which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has mentioned, and the National Bargee Travellers Association. The commissioners have been considering the points raised in the petitions. As I touched on in response to my hon. Friend’s intervention, if the Bill is given its Second Reading the commissioners will respond to those points prior to the Opposed Private Bill Committee stage. Both the commissioners and the petitioners will then have the opportunity to give evidence directly supporting their case to the Committee, which will determine the line-by-line detail of the Bill and whether its principle has been proved.
The Bill is long and complex and, for the benefit of Members, I do not intend to go through every aspect of it or of the petitions. There are, however, two issues that I think I should cover to assist the House. The first relates to houseboat owners. For some, the Middle Level is their home, not just a pleasure watercourse. I acknowledge, therefore, that one of the petitioners is the National Bargee Travellers Association. I have raised that issue in relation to the Bill’s powers and have been advised that the commissioners are a public authority bound by the Human Rights Act to comply with the European convention on human rights. If removing a vessel would interfere with its owner’s article 8 rights—namely the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence—that could be done only if it is proportionate to do so. The courts have indicated that it is more likely to be proportionate if a vessel plainly fails to meet safety standards or its owner consistently refuses to show that they have insurance, but it is not likely to be proportionate if there is a genuine dispute about breach of licence conditions.
The commissioners can spell that out in more detail in registration byelaws, if the Bill is passed. Of course, those byelaws will also be subject to ministerial confirmation. We could also explore the issue in more detail in the Bill Committee. Ultimately, those who make the place under discussion their home could also benefit from gaining better facilities and a more secure future via a modernised system of regulation and a modernised legal framework for the Middle Level.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) highlighted the second point, which is the idea of people paying more but not getting any facilities in return—in other words, a tax on using this stretch of water. I accept—I hope that the Bill’s promoters do as well—that this has to be a two-way street. Those who navigate cannot be charged more if they are going to receive a pretty similar service. There has to be a clear benefit. I have raised the issue with the Bill’s promoters and they have advised me that the commissioners recognise  that navigators being asked to pay charges will have to get something in return for their money—there is no two ways about that. They have agreed with the Inland Waterways Association, the East Anglian Waterways Association and the National Association of Boat Owners that they will set up a users’ panel, if the Bill is passed and the framework modernised. The panel will be able to discuss an annual programme of maintenance improvements before each year’s charges are set. The precise arrangements for the panel have not yet been agreed, but the commissioners could certainly set out more detail before the Bill Committee if that would be helpful.
I hope that that provides some reassurance to the House, but again this is a matter we could explore in some depth in Committee. I would just make the point that, as with the older Acts that currently regulate it, we may wish to consider carefully how much we want to put on the face of a Bill and how much could sensibly be left to allow some flexibility for the day-to-day management of the levels.
There is a lot of detail I could go into, particularly in relation to the patchwork of rather elderly Acts that regulate this waterway. To allow time for debate, I will not go through them all. I am, however, happy to respond to points raised during the debate and I look forward to the Minister’s comments. I beg to move that the Bill receives its Second Reading, so that its promoters and petitioners can make their case in Committee, and the Middle Level can have the modern, up-to-date system of regulation it deserves.

Sue Hayman: I am pleased to speak to the private Bill on behalf of the official Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for so thoroughly covering the background and setting out why the Bill is needed. I would like to emphasise a few points, because I think it is important that the House has a clear understanding of the proposals and of why the Bill is needed.
The Bill amends and updates the powers of the Middle Level Commissioners to regulate navigation on the Middle Level of the Fens. It would bring the Middle Level into line with powers granted to the Environment Agency, the Canal and River Trust, and the Norfolk Broads Authority. We have heard that the existing legislation dates from the 18th and 19th centuries, primarily the Middle Level Act 1862, and so it is remarkably out of date.
The Middle Level Commissioners provide flood defence and water level management to the Middle Level area, and are the navigation authority for the Middle Level river system. The Middle Level, the largest of the Great Level of the Fens, was reclaimed by drainage of the land in the 17th century. It consists of over 120 miles of watercourses, with 100 miles of them being statutory. But for the operations of the commissioners and the local internal drainage boards, much of this fenland would be underwater, as much of it is below sea level. This would have a devastating impact on the 100,000 people who live and work in the area.
The commissioners have consulted widely and thoroughly with interested parties, the substantial majority of whom were in favour of the proposed changes. In a nutshell, the Bill would allow the Middle Level Commissioners  to: charge vessels to use the waterways; fine people for staying longer than allowed at moorings; check that boats using the waterways have valid insurance; remove sunken or abandoned vessels; temporarily close sections of waterways for works or events; and enter into arrangements with other navigation authorities for the mutual recognition of registrations and licences.
Chris Howes, a local boat enthusiast, told the Wisbech Standard in March 2016 that he agreed with the commissioners’ plans, citing the apparently abandoned boats rotting away on the Old Nene that could be got rid of under the new powers. He said:
“the proposals are potentially so exciting, and so beneficial to Fenland, it’s hugely important that they come to fruition…If we want Fenland to aspire to be a tourist destination in the same way that Holland is, generating income to invest in our currently largely inaccessible waterways is a necessary stage.”
Iain Smith, the chief executive of the Middle Level Commissioners, said:
“it is important to update the laws, enabling us to have better control of the waterways we oversee.”
Additional income for the commissioners could make a real difference to fenland and to the waterways. I personally know the area well, having lived near there for a number of years, and would support any efforts to boost the local economy.
The Bill would bring legislation covering the Middle Level into the 21st century, in line with other navigation authorities. We support it.

Therese Coffey: Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on his opening remarks. I am delighted to see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham), because today is his birthday. That just shows how dedicated he is to his constituency duties. As he accurately identified, although his constituency is covered by the Middle Level Commissioners, this particular part of the navigation covers other stretches, including parts of the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) who, as members of the Government, cannot speak directly to this Bill.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her extremely kind remarks. She will be aware of two things. First, she will know that quite a lot of the navigation traffic—boats and other craft—start their journeys in King’s Lynn or in my constituency and go upstream into some of these waterways. Secondly, on a point that I am sure she will come to, she and I share a passion for flood defences, and one has to remember that the extra money will be used to secure some of these waterways to prevent flooding. Flooding would obviously be devastating for all the surrounding farm areas and the many people who make their living in this area.

Therese Coffey: As my hon. Friend shows, he is assiduous in ensuring that people who start their journey in his constituency are well served. I recognise what he said about how the management of waterways can help with flooding.
The main purpose of the Middle Level Bill is to amend and update the powers of the Middle Level Commissioners to regulate navigation on the Middle Level of the fens in the city of Peterborough and the counties of Cambridgeshire and Norfolk. The commissioners are the navigation authority for these waterways, and have powers under a range of local Acts passed between 1663 and 1874. They are the fourth largest inland navigation authority in the country by length of navigable waterway.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay set out, the commissioners have previously lobbied my Department, which is the lead policy Department responsible for inland navigation matters in this country. They wanted us to take forward legislation to amend the navigation powers, but given the constraints on Government time for legislation and the fact that the focus of the provisions is local, it was on our advice that the commissioners brought forward this private Bill. I welcome the work they have done in bringing forward the legislation that we are considering today.
As for Government scrutiny of the Bill, as the Minister responsible for inland navigation matters, I want to be satisfied that the proposed legislation and the measures included in the Bill are fit for purpose. I believe that they are, because the existing legal framework that governs the commissioners’ navigation function is now considerably dated. Some of the current laws under which the commissioners are working not only date back more than 250 years, but do not align with modern requirements. Furthermore, the current laws do not align with the statutory framework applicable to other navigation authorities—including, in particular, the commissioners’ neighbouring navigation authority, the Environment Agency, which is responsible for navigation on the River Nene and the Great Ouse. This Bill will update this dated legislation.
Unlike many other navigation authorities, such as the Environment Agency, the commissioners do not have charging powers to license boats that use their navigations. The Bill will allow that to happen and give the commissioners powers to introduce a registration scheme for vessels using the waterways. It will give the commissioners powers similar to those already exercised by other authorities such as the Environment Agency, the Canal & River Trust and the Broads Authority in respect of their own navigations. Importantly, the Bill will not alter the commission’s existing duty to protect and maintain the navigations, or affect the public’s right of navigation on the waterways. The Government would consequently be content for the Bill to make progress.

Stewart Jackson: I begin with the remark that all politics is local. We are now discussing the Middle Level Bill, while earlier today we were talking about major geo-political issues, including the invoking of article 50. Such is the cornucopia of delights available in the House of Commons.
We should not divide on this Bill. It is important to have a full and comprehensive debate today, but it should then proceed to Committee so that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) who so eloquently introduced the Bill as sponsor said, it can be looked at in greater detail.
I am a local Member of Parliament, but, as the Minister said, it has not been possible for Ministers directly affected by this Bill, principally my parliamentary neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), who is a Government Whip, to speak to it. However, as Members will know, the waterways we are discussing meet the River Nene at the city of Peterborough, and I therefore have a direct connection with and interest in the debate. Incidentally, in Cambridgeshire it is the River Nene, whereas in Northamptonshire, across the county line, it is—for some bizarre reason—the River Nen.
I pay tribute to one of the petitioners, my constituent Chris Taylor of Newborough, who has been indefatigable in raising this important issue and holding the Middle Level Commissioners to account. Like him, I believe that the petition period was insufficient and that there has not been a proper debate, but my principal worry is that there has been no cost-benefit analysis.
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay earlier, we are not talking about a navigation authority that is analogous with authorities such as the Broads Authority and other authorities throughout the country that provide better facilities—in fact, provide any facilities—and I think that legislating for a power to impose tolls and charges without upgrading those facilities would be a draconian and retrograde step, which is why, in my view, we need to debate the issue further in Committee.
I appreciate that it is imperative to regularise the legal basis for the navigation authority’s duties and responsibilities, with—as the Minister said—the proviso that the Government do not become involved in the detailed operational matters of the Middle Level Commissioners, but oversee their statutory duties. I understand that the Government broadly support the need to update and amend the existing legislation, on the basis what is in the documentation. As the Minister said, it is very aged legislation. There is not just the 17th-century legislation that she mentioned; there are the Middle Level Acts of 1810 to 1874, the Nene Navigation Act 1753, the Land Drainage Act 1991, and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
As I said earlier, what we are discussing is not a traditional canal or river, but interconnected open drains. The land was drained in the 17th century to release it for agricultural and other uses. As it is below sea level, until then it was effectively an inland sea. As for the town of Whittlesey, the clue is in the name. It was pretty wet, and was not used greatly. However—of course I would say this, as the local Member of Parliament—it contains some of the finest agricultural land in Britain, if not Europe, because it is incredibly well irrigated. We must bear in mind that the Middle Level Commissioners differ substantially from the more traditional navigation authorities.
The key issue that has caused concern is not just the basic issue of charges, as covered in clause 3 and, potentially, clause 9, which deals with byelaws. I accept that the petitioners are in the minority, but they contend that their public rights of navigation—not exactly ancient rights, but very well-established historical rights, bestowed on them in the latter part of the 17th century by the Duke of Bedford, who was a major landowner to the east of Peterborough and in the fens as a whole—are being curtailed and reduced. Indeed, they contend, in  their petition and in further papers, that those rights go back much further, beyond even Magna Carta in 1215: as far back as the 4th century. That is a major issue.
Let me give some more details of the petitioners’ complaint. We must bear it in mind that this is about charges on the 600 to 1,000 pleasure boats that use these 100 miles of waterways every year; it is not about commercial activity. I accept that in these straitened economic times public authorities have to look where they can to secure extra funding, and that it cannot just come from landowners, farmers and the taxpayer. I do not have an ideological aversion to further tolls and charges, therefore, but I do have an aversion to any unfairness to existing users of the facilities.
At the moment there are no services on this waterway: there are no water points, changing facilities, moorings, toilets, showers or collection points for rubbish. More importantly, notwithstanding the fact that secondary legislation might ameliorate the issue, at the moment that is not on the face of the Bill and is not promised. That is an important point made in the documentation by the Residential Boat Owners Association and the National Bargee Travellers Association.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay rightly pointed out that there is a human rights legislation issue, because if we are curtailing the right to a family life under article 8 by removing the capacity of people to enjoy what is their home—a barge, for instance, or a pleasure cruiser—that is a wider legal issue. That could be explored further in Committee.

Henry Bellingham: I thank my hon. Friend and constituency near neighbour for giving way. Does he accept that this is not just a question of using the levies for fees for providing services, because essential bank maintenance is also needed? Unless the banks are properly maintained, in a worst-case scenario there could be appalling flooding with the banks giving way, because, as he rightly points out, this area was extensively drained in the 16th century. So it is not just a question of providing facilities; it is also a question of maintaining the fabric of the waterways.

Stewart Jackson: May I add to the congratulations of the House on my hon. Friend’s birthday? If I may say so, he is pretty ageless—he has not aged during the 12 years I have been in Parliament—and felicitations to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that flood prevention and flood amelioration are massively important; we agree on that.

Rebecca Pow: I come from Somerset, and while I am not familiar with the exact area, my example is just the same. Surely any income that can be raised from navigation of the waterways would be welcomed, because currently, as I understand it, precious moneys raised through drainage rates and levies that ought to be going to vital flood prevention work to protect our precious farmland are being diverted to navigation works. This Bill is just tightening that up to correct this injustice.

Stewart Jackson: I am mindful of time and know that other Members want to contribute, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), so I will wrap up—also the Whip is giving me the evil eye, but only in her most endearing way.
I defer to the knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), and know that Somerset suffered the most appalling trauma of wide-scale flooding about five years ago. I do not think that it is mutually exclusive for us to be removing sunken boats, dredging and doing important infrastructure work that needs to be done, but it needs to be done in a more systematic way, and I am unconvinced about this private Bill, which seeks to be quite innocuous but is potentially quite draconian in what it imposes on people whose rights have been established for many hundreds of years.
It has been a pleasure to have this opportunity to represent Mr Taylor and some of the other people. If we are not here to represent unfashionable views of our constituents, we are wasting our time. In the course of the debate about this Bill, I hope that the petitioners and others with a key interest in the Middle Level will have the opportunity to have a cordial, productive meeting with the Middle Level Commissioners, and that some of those comments will be taken on board in Committee, so that the Bill will be improved. I hope that we can regularise the legislative necessity of the Bill while keeping faith with the people who are the lifeblood of the area—the pleasure boat users—because we need to look after their interests, too. I hope that we will find a mutually beneficial compromise in the near future.

Wendy Morton: I am mindful of the hour, so I will keep my contribution brief. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group for waterways and a narrowboat enthusiast, I support this private Bill today and want to take a few minutes to explain why.
Across the country, we have benefited from and continue to benefit from an incredible network of over 2,000 miles of canals, waterways and other navigations. In my constituency, we have the Wyrley and Essington canal, on which we have taken our own boat, but I have never been on the Middle Level—yet. Once the means for transporting goods in and out of and across the west midlands, the waterways are now a place for walking and for leisure. Through the work of the Canal & River Trust, the Inland Waterways Association and others, including many local organisations, charities and volunteer groups, we have seen a remarkable revival in our waterways in recent years, and they are being put on a more sustainable footing.
The Middle Level Bill relates specifically to the central and largest section of the Great Level of the fens—an area reclaimed by drainage during the mid-17th century. There are Members present with far more local knowledge than I would ever declare having, but the area covers 120 miles of watercourses, 100 miles of which are statutory navigations. As we have heard, the Bill seeks to modernise the commissioners’ operational powers and allow them to levy charges on users of the waterways to pay for their navigation functions.

Jim Shannon: Something that has been in the press over the past few weeks is the amount of litter that has been deposited across the countryside, including in waterways. Will charging boat owners mean that that litter will be taken away and properly disposed of? If that is part of the Bill’s purpose, it must be a step in the right direction.

Wendy Morton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. When I am out on the waterways, I certainly notice stretches with a lot of litter and debris. Every user of our canals, whether on the water or walking, has a duty to play their part in collecting litter, and we need provision for places where it can be placed.
What is particularly interesting about the Bill is that the commissioners currently have no navigation income. Any navigation works must be subsidised by those who pay a drainage levy. It is the largest navigation authority in the country without a navigation income.

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Wendy Morton: I am about to conclude, so I will continue because I am mindful of the time pressure.
The Bill is needed because it will aid the Middle Level Commissioners in becoming—this is crucial—a sustainable navigation authority with the proper powers to manage a 21st-century navigation, which is the in the interests of those who use it and those in the local area.

Christopher Chope: This debate would not be taking place if I had not blocked the Bill from going through on the nod on Second Reading. We have already heard about the benefits of having a proper Second Reading debate on a private Bill. Having spoken to some of the petitioners on the telephone, I point out that the Bill’s promoters have a serious responsibility to engage with those who take a different view or have concerns about its contents. One petitioner told me there has been no contact whatever from the authorities.
It is easy to talk about the Bill going to an Opposed Private Bill Committee. I have no objection to the Bill having a Second Reading, but it is important that it goes to an Opposed Private Bill Committee after there has been an exhaustive discussion between the petitioners and the promoters, rather than the Committee being used as the forum for that discussion, because the private Bill procedure in Committee is expensive and potentially adversarial. I wish that there had been more discussion between the promotors and the objectors.

Kevin Foster: When he intervened on my speech, my hon. Friend cited the example of the March cruising club. I have asked for clarification, and I am advised that the club was written to and telephoned but, sadly, there was no reply. A petition would allow further communication, but I have been advised that there was no reply to the consultation. I fully agree that there needs to be such engagement, as well as a formal Committee session.

Christopher Chope: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees with the need for informal engagement before the Bill goes to an Opposed Private Bill Committee, because apart from anything else, some of the petitioners are not well funded. If the Committee is prolonged and the petitioners have to be represented by counsel, the costs will be disproportionately high.
The National Audit Office published an illuminating report on internal drainage boards on 21 March—basically we are talking about a collection of drains, not canals. The report expresses concern about conflicts of interest   and the need for proper oversight and assurance that the internal drainage boards will not engage where there are conflicts of interest.
I notice that there are 33 independent internal drainage districts within the Middle Level, each of which is responsible for the local drainage of its area. When we talk about giving more powers to the Middle Level Commissioners, we need to be circumspect about the checks and balances on the exercise of those powers, which I hope the Committee will be able to investigate when it meets to consider the proposals and the petitions against them.
One of the petitions is from Nigel Moore, who says that he is
“a boat owner and manager of other people’s boats on various navigations, is an adviser on nationwide legal issues relating to boating, and is currently an approved lay advocate for a boater in a High Court action wherein issues arise over the interpretation of similar clauses to that proposed in this Bill.”
He objects to the Bill because it
“entails clear abolition of private and public rights to no justifiable purpose, and will lead to unnecessary future litigation over ambiguities.”
Like other petitioners, he refers to the Bill’s wide interpretation of the term “waterways”. Schedule 1 will extend the term to a lot of areas that are not even navigable. The Bill will also extend the commissioners’ powers to adjacent waters, including private waters that are not currently within their jurisdiction. Apparently that, so Mr Moore says, has been
“a contentious point in related litigation.”

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend says that rights are being taken away. Surely we are talking about the introduction of a few extra responsibilities and a few extra charges. What rights will be removed?

Christopher Chope: As a result of the Bill, owners of private waters that are not subject to the Middle Level Commissioners’ control will find themselves incorporated within the responsibilities of the commissioners, who will be able to use their regulatory powers in relation to what are currently private waters. That is an extension well beyond what one might have thought of as being the scope of the Bill. As my hon. Friend knows, being an experienced Member of this House, as soon as people get the opportunity to start legislating they always want to take more powers than they strictly need, which is one of the petitioners’ concerns.

Stewart Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is confusion about the duties and responsibilities of the authority as between navigation and dredging under the Bill? That needs to be clarified when the Bill goes into Committee.

Christopher Chope: Again, that is a good point, and it has been raised in several of the petitions.
Mr Moore expresses another concern, in stating that he
“objects to Clause 8(3) because the wording follows that of the contentious British Waterways Act of 1983, section (8), which has led to years of litigation as to its effect, whereas the wording of the similar clause in the Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2012 section (16) is far superior, and allows for no such ambiguity and potential attempted and unwarranted extension of powers. The wording ‘without lawful authority’ is also wholly inapplicable to refer to boats on public navigable waters, when the  right to be on the waterways derives from the public right, and the proposed provisions for registration of boats does not change that. This was the burden of Environment Agency submissions in a recent case on the Thames, which was, in my submission, correct”.
So he thinks that as worded, clause 8(3) would not only be against the expressed policy of the Environment Agency, but
“would be unenforceable and ineffectual in law, contrary to the expectation of the Commissioners, and prejudicial to the rights of boaters.”
I hope that even if nothing else is sorted out in Committee, those issues raised by Mr Moore will be.
As we have heard, a petition has also come from the March cruising club, which has been submitted by Mr Harwood, the club harbourmaster. Apart from complaining about the inadequate consultation, he raises a number of issues. Following on from the history that has been outlined by a number of the participants in this debate, he says:
“Pleasure boats have had free navigational access to the Old River Nene, which forms a large navigational section of the Middle Level, from before 1215 protected by Magna Carta and many subsequent statutes and Royal Commissions. There are even Roman transcripts describing navigation along the Old River Nene as early as the 4th Century during the Roman occupation. The Old River Nene is a natural river and a Public Right of Navigation has existed since Time Immemorial and was first codified in the Magna Carta of 1215.”

Kevin Foster: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is aware of the preamble to the Nene Navigation Act 1753, which describes the ancient navigation as
“being at all times extremely tedious, difficult and dangerous, and very frequently altogether impracticable.”

Christopher Chope: I do not quite know what point my hon. Friend is making, because he is referring to a preamble to a piece of legislation that of course is not an Act of Parliament. I am not sure that what he says undermines anything I have been saying in citing the submission of the March cruising club. I am sure that when the promoters engage properly with that club, they will be able to explore that issue further.
One other point made by the cruising club, which contradicts a number of assertions made in this debate, is that the commissioners already have the power to charge boats for the use of their waterways, but what they do not have is the power to charge pleasure boats. If there is a shortfall of £178,000 of unfunded expenditure, as has been alleged, there is nothing to prevent the commissioners from charging vessels that are not pleasure boats, or indeed charging for other activities. That would be consistent with the historical rights of pleasure boat owners to use the navigation without charge. The club goes on to say that the Middle Level is basically a “network of navigable drains”, so it is in a completely different category from some of the comparators that have been cited in support of the Bill by its promoters.
The club makes several other points in its submission, one of which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). It objects because
“the Bill contains no obligations under which the Commissioners would be duty bound to provide an adequate depth of water for navigation; dredging; maintenance or any facilities to boaters. Essentially, boaters would notice nothing positive, but would be subject to legislation that would: force them to pay a fee to register; pay annual licence fees; be a criminal offence to use the  navigation without a licence; be forced to display a registration number; restrict access during certain times of the year; have the risk of being refused a licence and appealing the decision in a Magistrates Court. There are no advantages for boaters in return. This will destroy the Middle Level navigation and the boating community.”
There are several other detailed points in the submission, but I shall not cite them all.
Unless the issues I have described are resolved amicably between the petitioners and the promoters, the Bill will have a pretty slow passage through the House, because I am sure Members will not wish to impinge on the rights that individuals have enjoyed for many years unless there is strong justification.
Another petition comes from Mr John Hodges, who describes himself as a “member of the public” and a
“homeowner with mooring on the banks of the Middle Level”.
He says that the proposals will “directly and specially affect” his rights. That is an indication of another category of objector.
There is also a petition against the Bill from somebody called Derek Paice, whose submission describes him as living
“on a narrowboat (which, since it is not a ‘commercial boat’, most fits the description of ‘pleasure boat’ in the Nene Navigation Act 1684) on the Middle Level and this has been his home since 2011. This was the only available and affordable option after losing his home of eight years when his father died.”
His submission alleges that
“the proposals contained in the Bill will directly and specially affect his rights and interests, including allowing the commissioners new powers to seize his home and sell it on for less than its value, effectively making him homeless, destitute and an additional cost to the state.”
Mr Paice’s submission goes on to say that the Bill
“contains no protection for the homes of people who, like him, live on their boats.”
Indeed, that theme was picked up by Pamela Smith from the National Bargee Travellers Association, who said that people who have lived and worked on boats for many years but who do not have moorings feel threatened by the proposals. She estimated that between 10,000 and 25,000 people—not just in the area of the Middle Level, but throughout the United Kingdom—live on boats but not at a fixed mooring. They are a different sort of itinerant community, and she feels that they will be very much discriminated against by many of the proposals in the Bill. Those concerns are echoed by other petitioners.
Clause 9 proposes giving the commissioners more powers to make byelaws, but those commissioners already have adequate byelaw-making powers under the Middle Level Act 1874. Under the clause, the commissioners are seeking the authority to examine people’s homes, which, in most cases, amounts to an unwarranted, unnecessary invasion of personal space. There are statutory bodies, including the police, with the authority to enter people’s homes under appropriate circumstances. Requiring boaters to surrender their right to privacy as a condition of being granted a licence to navigate is unreasonable and intrusive.
There are quite significant attempts in the Bill to impose on the rights of individuals. I noticed that when the Minister gave her certification in relation to the Bill’s compliance with the European convention on human rights, all she said was that she had no reason to suppose that the assertions made by the promoters were  incorrect. I am not sure whether we can be satisfied that the Government have yet explored the issues relating to human rights for their own purposes so that they can assure us that, in their own view—not just the view of the promoters—the Bill is fully compliant with the law on human rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough has already referred to the petition from his constituent, Christopher Taylor, so I will not refer to it again. I have referred briefly to what Pamela Smith has said on behalf of the National Bargee Travellers Association. That organisation has put in a major objection to much of the Bill. It has more than 700 members and four local groups and represents the interests of an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 bargee travellers in the United Kingdom. A significant number of members of the association either live permanently on the Middle Levels or use the waterways regularly. It is therefore a matter of great regret that there has been no proper discussion with the bargee travellers on the very important issues in the Bill, and I hope that that will remedied sooner rather than later. The association says that many bargee travellers use the Middle Levels as a transit route between the East Anglian waterways, such as the River Cam, the Great Ouse, or the Wissey, and the rest of the inland waterways. There is no other inland waterway route, and there would be no choice for them but to be bound by the proposed terms and conditions and to pay the proposed charges.
I am not very familiar with this part of the fens, and, apart from having visited other people who have a narrow boat, I am not familiar with this type of recreational boating. However, I am familiar with the sort of recreational boating that happens in my own constituency of Christchurch. All I can say is that if my constituents were faced with some of the regulations and powers to invade their privacy that are proposed in relation to the Middle Level of the fens, they would be outraged indeed. We have a large number of boats moored on the River Stour in Christchurch, and they do not all have names on them. People certainly do not have to give their name and address to some passing enforcement officer.
It seems to me that a lot of the Bill should be removed before it comes back for further consideration on Report. I hope that detailed discussion, consideration and scrutiny in Committee will have that consequence and that we will be able to look back and say, “This has been a worthwhile exercise, because a not very good Bill has been much improved as a result of proper scrutiny.”
I am not going to speak at length on this occasion, but I and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough are concerned that the rights of the petitioners should be heard in this great home of democracy.

Kevin Foster: It has been a pleasure to sit through this debate. I will not detain the House any longer by going through the individual comments we have heard, but I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for the detailed scrutiny and consideration they have given the Bill. There are certainly elements that we can take from the debate and deal with in Committee. In particular, we can deal with the byelaw powers and the question of engagement.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Defence

That the draft Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 20 February, be approved.—(Heather Wheeler.)
Question agreed to.

PETITION - SCHOOL FUNDING IN TONBRIDGE AND MALLING

Thomas Tugendhat: Mr Deputy Speaker, you have called me to present my petition rather earlier than I feared when I saw my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) take his place for the previous debate, but I am delighted to be addressing the House. I must declare an interest as I sit on the board of the academy trust of Hillview School for Girls, one of many excellent local schools that will struggle with the new funding formula. I have received a petition, signed by 75 people on paper and a further few hundred electronically, to present to the House of Commons. It states:
The petition of residents of Tonbridge and Malling,
Declares that schools in Tonbridge and Malling will remain underfunded under both the current and proposed funding plans.
The petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to note their objections to the funding formula for schools in Tonbridge and Malling.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002031]

Hyde Housing (Lambeth)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Heather Wheeler.)

Kate Hoey: I want to use this debate to draw attention to the failure of Hyde Housing Association in my constituency to honour its pledges and promises to the residents of its Lambeth estates and properties. Back in 1999, the tenants and residents of the central Stockwell area of Lambeth voted for a stock transfer from the council to Hyde Southbank Homes, part of the Hyde Group. Some 2,500 homes were transferred from Lambeth Council, and a few years later, in 2005, the 760 homes on the Kennington Park estate and Bridge estate near Oval followed suit.
Hyde Southbank Homes was a proactive and good landlord in the first few years. Headed by the almost legendary Charlie Adams, it was a bottom-up organisation keen to stick to its commitments to provide tenants with good-quality, well managed and well maintained homes at affordable rents. Unfortunately, following the sad death of Charlie and the many changes Hyde Group made, the management and maintenance went downhill, and residents began to see a difference.
The official documentation relating to the agreement between Lambeth Council and Hyde Southbank Homes constituted a legal document. It stated:
“This contract would contain a legally binding commitment that Hyde Southbank Homes would keep all the promises made to you in this document”.
When deciding on the future ownership of their homes, the residents took seriously their responsibility and the promises that they were given, as we would expect. They were assured, legally and morally, that they could rely on legal protection not just at the time of the transfer, but into the future. The promise document also stated:
“Any surplus money that HSH makes will remain within the HSH and will not be shared with any other part of the Hyde Group.”
Hyde explicitly promised that
“The existing community buildings will be refurbished to provide facilities for all residents.”
It said that non-housing services such as “improved community facilities” would be provided, and that it would
“encourage better and more regular use of local facilities such as the…Community Centre”.
There are two community halls owned and managed by Hyde in my constituency, and they are both at risk, in a complete reneging on Hyde’s promises to the residents. Following a very unsatisfactory so-called consultation between November 2016 and January 2017, Hyde decided to go ahead with its plans to privatise the Stockwell community centre and is looking for an organisation to take it on. It has extended the closing date for expressions of interest from suitable organisations because only three were received, and because the interested organisations were relatively small, with small annual turnovers, and were therefore not in a strong enough organisational or financial position to take responsibility for the building and its management. It is also believed that these organisations find the conditions for taking the lease of the centre so restrictive that it would be of no benefit or advantage to them.
The residents are very concerned about the real intention of Hyde. Is it setting conditions to which no well regarded not-for-profit organisation could agree? Under these conditions, the centre could not be made financially viable. The Kennington Park estate community hall has now been earmarked for closure and demolition to allow for the building of new homes. Now, we might have said, “Great—new homes!”, but nearly all of them are designed for sale or private shared ownership.
The consultation with all residents of the estates who have a stake in the future of their community centre has been very poor indeed. All past and present members of households on the Kennington Park estate, and potential future users of the centre, are entitled to be asked what they think, but that did not happen. Hyde seemed to think that it was the tenant and resident association’s responsibility to carry out the consultation, but of course the consultation should have gone much wider than the immediate area beside the community centre, because the centre is used by many people from all around the area. It was a shoddy consultation. Hyde put out some questions and answers to residents, saying that it owned and managed these community centres, and that the cost was becoming too much. It tried to blame the Government’s 1% rent reduction for social housing, saying that it meant that it
“has to make cost savings and has had to review all…services”.
The Minister may be surprised to know that, despite residents not liking the 1% rent reduction for social housing and how it might work, they are not blaming it at all. It is misleading, inaccurate and inappropriate for Hyde to claim that it subsidises the running costs because, of course, income from the tenants’ rents contributes to the maintenance of services such as community centres.
Hyde also said that as a housing provider, it needed to
“make efficient use of its income to ensure we are able to prioritise building more homes to help address the housing crisis”,
which meant it had to make difficult choices about what additional services it continued to fund and what it stopped.
The residents strongly feel that any responsible landlord is required to prioritise delivery of an acceptable standard of landlord services to its existing tenants first. It is a matter of real concern and great disappointment to residents, local councillors and myself that Hyde only too clearly puts the funding of new build above its duty and responsibility to deliver to an acceptable standard the full range of landlord services as required by law.
Of course, people have found out about what is happening, and it is clear that the community is against it. As I mentioned, Hyde asserts that it cannot afford to run the Kennington Park estate centre, in particular, or the Stockwell centre, yet HSH’s accounts show a surplus for 2015-16 of over £2 million, and revenue reserves of £46,136,000. I mentioned at the beginning the commitments made when the transfers took place: any surplus money that HSH makes will remain within HSH and will not be shared with any other part of Hyde—that was the promise. In other words, the surpluses and reserves should first be reinvested in HSH and should not just be given over to the Hyde Group to build new housing for sale on the Kennington Park estate while the community centre is not replaced.
Hyde’s argument as regards the review of the community centre is that it needs to prioritise building homes. Of course, building homes is a priority for all of us; we know that more than anyone in the borough of Lambeth, where the housing waiting list is huge. However, capital funding for new homes is not the same as the revenue generated from the rents. The Kennington Park Estate Tenants’ and Residents’ Association has worked out that the revenue generated from the rents does cover the £22,500 subsidy that was provided to keep the centre open and running. That is less than 2% of HSH’s 2015-16 surplus, which, incidentally, is linked to a time when the community centre was often closed, and the income was at its potentially lowest level, due to Hyde’s indecision, incompetence and bad management.
There is real shock that Hyde, after what it promised, and given how well it worked with local residents in the early stages, has now decided to go down this route. Hyde Housing is failing not just on the community centres, but on many fronts, from service charges, which one tenant leader has said are in chaos, to day-to-day maintenance, parking charges and pushing new housing into totally inadequate spaces, such as in the case of Birrell House.
One of my constituents has given me permission to quote from his letter to Hyde about service charges. This is typical of the way Hyde works—it is completely non-transparent. The service charges for the coming year are based on estimates from so-called actual costs, details of which have never actually been sent to the residents. Residents have therefore been sent service charges for this year without any real proof of how the service charges for last year were spent. This resident, who has had long-standing discussions with Hyde, said to me, and in his letter to Hyde, that he first requested the accounts and receipts for 2013-14. He says:
“This took over a year to finally arrive in October 2015 before we were able to examine them. To this date we still have issues that were raised with those that remain unresolved by Hyde.”
Following on from that, he requested the 2014-15 accounts and receipts. Those took Hyde—this was slightly better—well over six months to finally provide. After my constituent went through those, there were numerous things that were obviously incorrect, and lots of invoices were not there or had not been identified by Hyde. After a number of exchanges—my constituent dealt with 17 different people in Hyde in trying to get this information—he finally got a comprehensive spreadsheet detailing the many issues, cross-referenced to the invoicing scheme, and he has gone through it in great detail.
Hyde has continually given estimates for the service charge up until the end of the year. It then issues a notice giving the difference between the estimates and the actual charge, and requesting the difference. My constituent fails to understand, as I do, how Hyde can give the actual sums yet be unable to provide the accounts and receipts from which they must have been derived. Why does it take a housing association with that scale of money behind it between six months and a year to obtain these accounts? Hyde is genuinely failing to respond in a timely and professional fashion. Indeed, some tenants feel that it has been using bully-boy tactics to demand payment when they are, quite understandably, still waiting to get the real facts before they pay. People  have tried to resolve these issues in good faith, and this has been going on for a very long time. My constituent ends by saying:
“It would be nice to deal with a company that was above board and accountable to its fee paying residents without all this aggravation, and did not have to waste our time or theirs.”
Arden House, three tower blocks on the Grantham Road estate near Stockwell, was transferred, again, in 1999. The boiler refurbishments outside and within all dwellings, plus boiler upgrades, were supposed to be guaranteed for 30 years. Arden House’s boiler room is situated at the top of the building and houses two commercial boilers supplying communal heating and hot water to all dwellings. All the residents pay for these services through their service charges. In October 2015, the boilers failed. The residents went without heating and hot water services for 11 days. Finally, they got the service restored, and, after a long time, got some refunds for the time they went without.
In October 2016, the boilers failed again. The residents were advised that one boiler was working and the other needed parts. The contractors were called in and restored the system; then the boilers went off again. Since then, the residents have had heating and hot water services on and off; a few days later on again, then off; and then back on for a few days and off again. There are lots of accounts of night-time call-outs being made to Hyde’s contractors. They come to restart the boilers, but then the boilers go off again. This is all, of course, at the residents’ own expense in ringing up, and there is a general feeling of their not being able to get through to people. Boiler parts have been ordered and fitted, but the problem is still not solved.
A new local Hyde manager has recently been appointed. I am not putting any blame on him, because he has inherited a difficult situation. He, too, has been chasing the contractors. The residents have suggested bringing in somebody qualified from outside who actually knows what is going on, because it seems that no one within Hyde’s contractors has really got to the bottom of what is wrong. Residents have had to pay full charges for this service for five months, but they have received less than half a service. Now Hyde is saying that it wants to look at an expensive replacement boiler that will be metered into each dwelling, costing residents even more money, yet it cannot even maintain what is there is now. The residents believe that the situation is totally unacceptable and disgraceful. Joyce Hopper from the Arden House community group says:
“Hyde Housing should hang their heads in shame. Will someone please intervene and get our Heating and Hot water services restored once and for all?”
I turn to another issue. This might seem trivial to some people, but on the Stockwell Gardens west estate, there is a problem with estate parking. Hyde is trying to charge £90 a year for parking on its estates in Lambeth. While that is slightly less than what Lambeth Council charges for permits for street parking, the council charges residents on its estates £31.79 a year, which is considerably less than £90. There have been months of discussions and work to try to get the amount fixed at what can be seen as a reasonable compromise. Hyde argues that the money from the collection of permits goes towards maintaining roads on the estate, but local councillors have seen invoices showing that that is not true. It seems that Hyde wants to make money in whatever way it can, as quickly as possible.
Hyde is also trying to build on the Birrell House site, as I mentioned. That would be bad in any event, because it is the wrong place and residents who have lived there for many years will lose all sorts of facilities, but it would not be so bad if it was going to involve affordable housing. However, the site will be a huge development for sale that it will not be possible to use for affordable housing.
I supported the residents when they wanted Hyde to take over, because they had not been getting a great service. Hyde managed the estate during the competitive tendering process, and the arrangement worked so well that the residents asked whether Hyde could take over, which Lambeth agreed to. While things started off well, Hyde no longer seems to be interested in the residents and tenants, particularly the longer-term ones.
Hyde is interested in getting more housing, but not necessarily affordable housing. An organisation that has done quite a lot of work on the detail of what has been happening at Hyde shows us that Hyde is using community centres as assets. The question is not whether the community centres are affordable, but whether Hyde wants to give them any priority—it has clearly decided that it does not. Hyde’s bosses claim that the money that it makes from its for-profit activities will ultimately benefit the rest of the group, but it no longer seems to be worried about the effect on long-term residents.
Hyde’s board has become incredibly corporate. Members may well know the chief executive, Elaine Bailey, who spent 12 years at Serco before she joined Hyde. She is quite used to scandal from those days, and I suspect that she will be seeing a bit more. In 2013 she had to defend her former company over accusations that it had overcharged the Government for criminal tagging, meaning that it faced a £68.5 million bill. It also took some flak for its involvement in immigration centres. I could go through a whole list of things, but I suppose that that would not really be fair to her although, at the same time, we can see why residents do not have huge faith in her.
The chairman of the Hyde group ran the online retailer Net-a-Porter, and before that he was an investment banker, as were two of his colleagues. There is a corporate lawyer on the board, as well as senior people who formerly worked for BT and the weapons manufacturer BAE Systems, and a chartered surveyor who has worked extensively in private sector housing development. Rounding off the board is the former boss of the G4S prisons and justice division, which has a record similar to Serco’s.
Charitable status and the absence of shareholders are not guarantees that an organisation will be run for more than money. Hyde is actively pursuing a strategy that puts corporate success over the concerns of its residents. Financial analysis carried out by Corporate Watch has brought out some quite “dodgy” things, about which I think the Minister should be concerned over the long term. The chief executive’s salary went up from £189,000 in 2015 to £242,000 in 2016. That is somewhat more than most of the residents—and, indeed, most of us in this House—earn. Why are these people paying themselves such large sums of money when they cannot even get basic repairs done for their residents?
For those of us who wanted this to happen, and who did our best to make it work in the interests of residents, the most upsetting thing is the very cynical ethos that Hyde has adopted. It has lost its bottom-up, tenant-led housing service, which was based on tenant involvement  and support. It has become hugely corporate, and it puts corporate success above providing services to its residents.
I want to probe the Minister about what more local councillors, the local council and the Government can do to make Hyde Housing abide by its commitments and retain the community services about which promises were made. Surely it must be possible to make Hyde honour those promises, which were in a legal document, without councils and residents having to go to court and spend lots of money. Hyde must be held to account, and the Government must be able to put some pressure on the top people. This situation is not happening only in Lambeth. Since knowledge of this Adjournment debate has been in the public domain, I have had lots of letters and emails about the activities of Hyde Housing in other areas, so there is clearly real concern. If Hyde gets away with this, it sends out a green light to every other housing association—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. This is not a problem—it is up to the hon. Lady when to finish—but may I point out that there are only eight minutes left for the Minister?

Kate Hoey: I will finish by saying that those questions have arisen, as I think the Minister understands, and I just want to make sure that the tenants and residents really feel that somebody somewhere is listening to them and doing something about Hyde’s appalling services.

Gavin Barwell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) not just on securing this debate, but on the eloquence with which she has set out her constituents’ concerns. I assure her that the House has listened very carefully to what she has said about the situation her constituents are experiencing. I was pleased to hear of the initial improvements that Hyde delivered after the transfers, and I was very disappointed to hear that those improvements have ebbed away. I anticipated that the hon. Lady would focus primarily on the issues in relation to the two community centres, but she raised much wider concerns about some of the basic landlord services that her constituents are experiencing.
The hon. Lady will be aware of the Government’s view, which is that housing associations are part of the private sector. They are not state institutions under the Government’s control, so there are limits to how much I can say to reassure her. It is worth pointing out—in fact, it is important to point out, thinking back to one of the quotes she read from a letter sent to her by a constituent—that housing associations are not profit-making companies. They have clear values of helping people in real housing need, and it is very important that as they become much more commercial organisations, raising finance from the private sector to help them to achieve their objectives, they do not lose sight of the core values that lie behind them.
The housing associations currently operating in this country broadly fall into three categories: some of them, such as the Peabody Trust, are the original philanthropic organisations set up some time ago; a whole lot of them were set up on the back of “Cathy Come Home”; and more recent ones were often formed  as the result of the transfer of local authority homes. However, all of them should have a common set of values, and it is important that they do not lose sight of those values as they become more commercial in the ways they finance the development of housing.
By way of a partial reassurance for the hon. Lady, it is important to say that although housing associations sit outside state control, they should comply with the clear regulatory standards that exist, and some of the issues she raised clearly give rise to concerns in relation to that. At the moment, this association has the highest level of regulatory clearance. I do not know whether she has been in touch with the regulator about some of these issues, but if not, she or Lambeth Council may wish to draw those concerns to the regulator’s attention.
More generally, the points raised by the hon. Lady draw our attention to one of the fundamental challenges that confronts the housing association sector. This debate is quite timely for me, because my first meeting this morning—it was some hours ago—was with a group of housing associations to discuss the Government’s housing White Paper and the role that they can play in helping to confront the housing crisis in this country at the moment. As a Government, we are very much pushing housing associations to increase the supply of housing and to build the new homes that, as I am sure the hon. Lady agrees, are so desperately needed right across the country, but particularly in this great city that she and I have the privilege to represent in this House. However, there is a tension in ensuring that housing associations, in their efforts to deliver the housing we so desperately need, do not lose sight of their responsibilities in providing services to their existing rental tenants. It is probably worth putting on record a little bit about the scale of what Hyde is doing in that regard. In 2014-15, it built more than 1,000 new homes of various tenures. Its plan is to deliver about 3,000 homes from 2015 to 2018, and a further 3,000 from 2018 to 2020. In terms of supply, it is doing very much what the Government—and, I am sure, the hon. Lady—want it to do with regard to meeting the acute housing need in our city and across the country. Hyde also provides a lot of services to tenants, including financial advice, and jobs and training advice. That is a very important part of its work as a landlord.
Obviously, the core issue of this debate is that relating to the two community centres. As the hon. Lady said, the central Stockwell estate, with just under 2,500 homes, was transferred in 1998-99, and Kennington Park, with about 760 homes, was transferred in 2005. At the core of the hon. Lady’s argument was the suggestion that Hyde has not honoured the promises it made at the time of those transfers. If she believes that to be the case, my main suggestion is that her first port of call should be to make a complaint to the association itself under its complaint procedure. I am sure that she has already done that—she would not have raised the issue in the House if she had not.
If the hon. Lady has exhausted Hyde’s own complaint procedure, the next step is to go to the housing ombudsman, who has responsibility in respect of the honouring of any promises that were given. If that has not happened so far, the hon. Lady might wish to go down that route.
I know the association reasonably well. I have met its chief executive, Elaine Bailey, a number of times. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has tried to get in touch with Elaine directly, but if she has not and she would like my help in facilitating a meeting so that she can raise some of her concerns directly, I would be happy to do so, if that would be of any use.
I am conscious that time is drawing to a close, but from the Government’s point of view, housing associations have an absolutely vital role to play in delivering the new homes that we so desperately need in this country. However, as I have said, it is very important that, alongside delivering those new homes, they also have regard to the services that they provide to their existing tenants. The Government take that very seriously.
The two main ways in which control is exercised is through regulatory standards and the housing ombudsman, with whom people can raise concerns. I encourage the hon. Lady to go down those two paths. She may want to speak to me further about these matters outside the Chamber, and I will certainly use my office in any way I can to try to help her to ensure that she gets the result that her constituents would rightly expect with regard to the services that they receive. I am grateful to her for drawing these issues to my attention.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.